If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
simple structure question with complicated data[x-post from design
I have a really simple structure regarding a db for an ISP. I need get weekly
utilization figures which I get from Excel but would like to do in Access. I'm cross posting this from the design section since no one answered it. area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics areaID area transmitterID AREAID transmitter ports nodeID transmitterId nodes statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic A tricky part is they split the node if the utilization is over 50% and move it to a new router. The node is the pedestal that is connected to the subscribers. Each node has groupings of 4 letter names, for example ABCD,EFGH. The related transmitter ports sometimes have the exact same name ABCD,EFGH. To split the transmitter ,they take one port, for example, ABCD and call it A, ABCD-A and ABCD-B to show the split on the transmitter. They take the first node ABCD corresponds to transmitter ABCD-A and the 2nd EFGH and it corresponds to transmitter ABCD-B to split it if the utilization is over 50%. Sometimes there are more nodes than transmitter ports the ports and nodes aren't always matching in number or names. there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. The nodes are all one group and the ports are all one group hence one to one. When it gets over 50% it gets split. Some of the nodes get attached to a new transmiter as mentioned above. It is still unique one to one relationship for each area -- router--transmitter to nodes. Its just the transmitter has an A or B extension name showing it was split. I could do a one to many from each port to each node but that wouldn't be worth all the data input and it doesn't seem to be needed since there still is maintained a one to one relationship from the ports to the nodes even if the groupings are moved. QUESTION: Is this better to do in Excel? I get the Excel report from a nAccess db that gets the data from SQL. If I can get to the SQL db then I could do the queries and get the data. The problem with Excel is a new column is added weekly for the nodes over 50% for both tv and internet. Then they have to find which nodes on the tv side are also on the internet side so they can be advised and try to do the work together. The user has to do all these vlookups to find out which nodes are still over 50%. It would be easier in a database at least . They also have to clean the data each week. It seems to be a real mess but I want to be sure my relationships are right before I try it. any advice would be appreciated. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
simple structure question with complicated data[x-post from design
Janis,
This structure doesn't look simple to me. Certainly I can't understand it. This area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics implies to me that there are 1:M relationships between area and router, router and transmitter, transmitter and node, and node and item of statistical data. But elsewhere you say there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. and also mention transmitter ports, which seem to be related M:1 to transmitters. As far as I can make out the object of the exercise is to collate and report on usage statistics (by node? port? transmitter?). This table confuses me: statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic It seems to me that this should include a NodeId field. .... At this stage I feel that the heart of your structure needs to be one or more tables that track the creation (and, presumably, at least in principle, destruction) of nodes. Maybe something along these lines: tblNodes NodeID* PortID (assuming a 1:M relationship between Ports and Nodes) DateCreated ParentNodeID (the node from which this node was split off) DateDestroyed On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:50:01 -0700, Janis wrote: I have a really simple structure regarding a db for an ISP. I need get weekly utilization figures which I get from Excel but would like to do in Access. I'm cross posting this from the design section since no one answered it. area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics areaID area transmitterID AREAID transmitter ports nodeID transmitterId nodes statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic A tricky part is they split the node if the utilization is over 50% and move it to a new router. The node is the pedestal that is connected to the subscribers. Each node has groupings of 4 letter names, for example ABCD,EFGH. The related transmitter ports sometimes have the exact same name ABCD,EFGH. To split the transmitter ,they take one port, for example, ABCD and call it A, ABCD-A and ABCD-B to show the split on the transmitter. They take the first node ABCD corresponds to transmitter ABCD-A and the 2nd EFGH and it corresponds to transmitter ABCD-B to split it if the utilization is over 50%. Sometimes there are more nodes than transmitter ports the ports and nodes aren't always matching in number or names. there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. The nodes are all one group and the ports are all one group hence one to one. When it gets over 50% it gets split. Some of the nodes get attached to a new transmiter as mentioned above. It is still unique one to one relationship for each area -- router--transmitter to nodes. Its just the transmitter has an A or B extension name showing it was split. I could do a one to many from each port to each node but that wouldn't be worth all the data input and it doesn't seem to be needed since there still is maintained a one to one relationship from the ports to the nodes even if the groupings are moved. QUESTION: Is this better to do in Excel? I get the Excel report from a nAccess db that gets the data from SQL. If I can get to the SQL db then I could do the queries and get the data. The problem with Excel is a new column is added weekly for the nodes over 50% for both tv and internet. Then they have to find which nodes on the tv side are also on the internet side so they can be advised and try to do the work together. The user has to do all these vlookups to find out which nodes are still over 50%. It would be easier in a database at least . They also have to clean the data each week. It seems to be a real mess but I want to be sure my relationships are right before I try it. any advice would be appreciated. -- John Nurick - Access MVP |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
simple structure question with complicated data[x-post from de
I thought it was all one to many and it seemed simple.you are right. routers
have ports. The transmitter however is a separate entity one object without ports. The individual nodes are separate entities and get moved around. So it is re- wired to the transmitters and routers. The node doesn't get destroyed it just gets moved. If you are counting a move as a new node then possibly it was destroyed in that sense. HOWEVER, they would like to see the old node without any utilization on the report to show what happened. If the old ports are shown could this be a many to many?The physical reality is the node is gone but on the report they want to see the old data. QUESTION:So how do I show this in a db? Area 1:M-- Router Ports---1:1Transmitter----1:M Nodes When a node gets segmented part of its traffic gets routed to a new transmitter. The node doesn't change. Then it gets complicated. The old node ABCD is dead. It has no utilization and is in effect destroyed, but they want to see what happened to it. 2 new nodes are created from the one ABCD-A and ABCD-B. So now on this murky report I have to show all 3. QUESTION: How do I do that? thanks, "John Nurick" wrote: Janis, This structure doesn't look simple to me. Certainly I can't understand it. This area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics implies to me that there are 1:M relationships between area and router, router and transmitter, transmitter and node, and node and item of statistical data. But elsewhere you say there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. and also mention transmitter ports, which seem to be related M:1 to transmitters. As far as I can make out the object of the exercise is to collate and report on usage statistics (by node? port? transmitter?). This table confuses me: statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic It seems to me that this should include a NodeId field. .... At this stage I feel that the heart of your structure needs to be one or more tables that track the creation (and, presumably, at least in principle, destruction) of nodes. Maybe something along these lines: tblNodes NodeID* PortID (assuming a 1:M relationship between Ports and Nodes) DateCreated ParentNodeID (the node from which this node was split off) DateDestroyed On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:50:01 -0700, Janis wrote: I have a really simple structure regarding a db for an ISP. I need get weekly utilization figures which I get from Excel but would like to do in Access. I'm cross posting this from the design section since no one answered it. area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics areaID area transmitterID AREAID transmitter ports nodeID transmitterId nodes statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic A tricky part is they split the node if the utilization is over 50% and move it to a new router. The node is the pedestal that is connected to the subscribers. Each node has groupings of 4 letter names, for example ABCD,EFGH. The related transmitter ports sometimes have the exact same name ABCD,EFGH. To split the transmitter ,they take one port, for example, ABCD and call it A, ABCD-A and ABCD-B to show the split on the transmitter. They take the first node ABCD corresponds to transmitter ABCD-A and the 2nd EFGH and it corresponds to transmitter ABCD-B to split it if the utilization is over 50%. Sometimes there are more nodes than transmitter ports the ports and nodes aren't always matching in number or names. there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. The nodes are all one group and the ports are all one group hence one to one. When it gets over 50% it gets split. Some of the nodes get attached to a new transmiter as mentioned above. It is still unique one to one relationship for each area -- router--transmitter to nodes. Its just the transmitter has an A or B extension name showing it was split. I could do a one to many from each port to each node but that wouldn't be worth all the data input and it doesn't seem to be needed since there still is maintained a one to one relationship from the ports to the nodes even if the groupings are moved. QUESTION: Is this better to do in Excel? I get the Excel report from a nAccess db that gets the data from SQL. If I can get to the SQL db then I could do the queries and get the data. The problem with Excel is a new column is added weekly for the nodes over 50% for both tv and internet. Then they have to find which nodes on the tv side are also on the internet side so they can be advised and try to do the work together. The user has to do all these vlookups to find out which nodes are still over 50%. It would be easier in a database at least . They also have to clean the data each week. It seems to be a real mess but I want to be sure my relationships are right before I try it. any advice would be appreciated. -- John Nurick - Access MVP |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
simple structure question with complicated data[x-post from de
Question number 2: Would it work without having a many to many from ports to
transmitters if I show the destroyed ports and the alive ports in the report? Its a many to many but I suppose I could add the date field and then it would be unique. thanks a lot John. "John Nurick" wrote: Janis, This structure doesn't look simple to me. Certainly I can't understand it. This area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics implies to me that there are 1:M relationships between area and router, router and transmitter, transmitter and node, and node and item of statistical data. But elsewhere you say there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. and also mention transmitter ports, which seem to be related M:1 to transmitters. As far as I can make out the object of the exercise is to collate and report on usage statistics (by node? port? transmitter?). This table confuses me: statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic It seems to me that this should include a NodeId field. .... At this stage I feel that the heart of your structure needs to be one or more tables that track the creation (and, presumably, at least in principle, destruction) of nodes. Maybe something along these lines: tblNodes NodeID* PortID (assuming a 1:M relationship between Ports and Nodes) DateCreated ParentNodeID (the node from which this node was split off) DateDestroyed On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:50:01 -0700, Janis wrote: I have a really simple structure regarding a db for an ISP. I need get weekly utilization figures which I get from Excel but would like to do in Access. I'm cross posting this from the design section since no one answered it. area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics areaID area transmitterID AREAID transmitter ports nodeID transmitterId nodes statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic A tricky part is they split the node if the utilization is over 50% and move it to a new router. The node is the pedestal that is connected to the subscribers. Each node has groupings of 4 letter names, for example ABCD,EFGH. The related transmitter ports sometimes have the exact same name ABCD,EFGH. To split the transmitter ,they take one port, for example, ABCD and call it A, ABCD-A and ABCD-B to show the split on the transmitter. They take the first node ABCD corresponds to transmitter ABCD-A and the 2nd EFGH and it corresponds to transmitter ABCD-B to split it if the utilization is over 50%. Sometimes there are more nodes than transmitter ports the ports and nodes aren't always matching in number or names. there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. The nodes are all one group and the ports are all one group hence one to one. When it gets over 50% it gets split. Some of the nodes get attached to a new transmiter as mentioned above. It is still unique one to one relationship for each area -- router--transmitter to nodes. Its just the transmitter has an A or B extension name showing it was split. I could do a one to many from each port to each node but that wouldn't be worth all the data input and it doesn't seem to be needed since there still is maintained a one to one relationship from the ports to the nodes even if the groupings are moved. QUESTION: Is this better to do in Excel? I get the Excel report from a nAccess db that gets the data from SQL. If I can get to the SQL db then I could do the queries and get the data. The problem with Excel is a new column is added weekly for the nodes over 50% for both tv and internet. Then they have to find which nodes on the tv side are also on the internet side so they can be advised and try to do the work together. The user has to do all these vlookups to find out which nodes are still over 50%. It would be easier in a database at least . They also have to clean the data each week. It seems to be a real mess but I want to be sure my relationships are right before I try it. any advice would be appreciated. -- John Nurick - Access MVP |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
simple structure question with complicated data[x-post from de
Janis,
Next time please post your reply as a response in the existing thread. Creating a new thread like this makes for confusion. I still don't understand the situation. You say Area 1:M-- Router Ports---1:1Transmitter----1:M Nodes Presumably this should have been Area 1:M-- Router 1:M-- Ports--1:1 Transmitter-- 1:M Nodes If that's the case, the tblNodes table I proposed in my last message tblNodes NodeID* PortID (assuming a 1:M relationship between Ports and Nodes) DateCreated ParentNodeID (the node from which this node was split off) DateDestroyed should be more like tblNodes tblNodeName* (assuming the node names such as ABCD and ABCD-A are reliably unique and stable) TransmitterID (foreign key into tblTransmitters) DateCreated ParentNodeName (the node from which this node was split off or segmented.) A normalised structure based around this will let you produce the reports you want (as I understand them). More commments inline. On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:04:00 -0700, Janis wrote: I thought it was all one to many and it seemed simple.you are right. routers have ports. The transmitter however is a separate entity one object without ports. The individual nodes are separate entities and get moved around. So it is re- wired to the transmitters and routers. The node doesn't get destroyed it just gets moved. Do Nodes get moved from one Transmitter to another? If they do, do you need to track their movements? If you are counting a move as a new node then possibly it was destroyed in that sense. HOWEVER, they would like to see the old node without any utilization on the report to show what happened. If the old ports are shown could this be a many to many?The physical reality is the node is gone but on the report they want to see the old data. QUESTION:So how do I show this in a db? Area 1:M-- Router Ports---1:1Transmitter----1:M Nodes When a node gets segmented part of its traffic gets routed to a new transmitter. The node doesn't change. Then it gets complicated. The old node ABCD is dead. It has no utilization and is in effect destroyed, but they want to see what happened to it. 2 new nodes are created from the one ABCD-A and ABCD-B. So now on this murky report I have to show all 3. QUESTION: How do I do that? thanks, "John Nurick" wrote: Janis, This structure doesn't look simple to me. Certainly I can't understand it. This area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics implies to me that there are 1:M relationships between area and router, router and transmitter, transmitter and node, and node and item of statistical data. But elsewhere you say there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. and also mention transmitter ports, which seem to be related M:1 to transmitters. As far as I can make out the object of the exercise is to collate and report on usage statistics (by node? port? transmitter?). This table confuses me: statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic It seems to me that this should include a NodeId field. .... At this stage I feel that the heart of your structure needs to be one or more tables that track the creation (and, presumably, at least in principle, destruction) of nodes. Maybe something along these lines: tblNodes NodeID* PortID (assuming a 1:M relationship between Ports and Nodes) DateCreated ParentNodeID (the node from which this node was split off) DateDestroyed On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:50:01 -0700, Janis wrote: I have a really simple structure regarding a db for an ISP. I need get weekly utilization figures which I get from Excel but would like to do in Access. I'm cross posting this from the design section since no one answered it. area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics areaID area transmitterID AREAID transmitter ports nodeID transmitterId nodes statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic A tricky part is they split the node if the utilization is over 50% and move it to a new router. The node is the pedestal that is connected to the subscribers. Each node has groupings of 4 letter names, for example ABCD,EFGH. The related transmitter ports sometimes have the exact same name ABCD,EFGH. To split the transmitter ,they take one port, for example, ABCD and call it A, ABCD-A and ABCD-B to show the split on the transmitter. They take the first node ABCD corresponds to transmitter ABCD-A and the 2nd EFGH and it corresponds to transmitter ABCD-B to split it if the utilization is over 50%. Sometimes there are more nodes than transmitter ports the ports and nodes aren't always matching in number or names. there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. The nodes are all one group and the ports are all one group hence one to one. When it gets over 50% it gets split. Some of the nodes get attached to a new transmiter as mentioned above. It is still unique one to one relationship for each area -- router--transmitter to nodes. Its just the transmitter has an A or B extension name showing it was split. I could do a one to many from each port to each node but that wouldn't be worth all the data input and it doesn't seem to be needed since there still is maintained a one to one relationship from the ports to the nodes even if the groupings are moved. QUESTION: Is this better to do in Excel? I get the Excel report from a nAccess db that gets the data from SQL. If I can get to the SQL db then I could do the queries and get the data. The problem with Excel is a new column is added weekly for the nodes over 50% for both tv and internet. Then they have to find which nodes on the tv side are also on the internet side so they can be advised and try to do the work together. The user has to do all these vlookups to find out which nodes are still over 50%. It would be easier in a database at least . They also have to clean the data each week. It seems to be a real mess but I want to be sure my relationships are right before I try it. any advice would be appreciated. -- John Nurick - Access MVP -- John Nurick - Access MVP |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
simple structure question with complicated data[x-post from de
In your previous message you said there was a 1:1 relationship between
Transmitters and Ports. And this is the first mention of Ports being destroyed (and if they're destroyed they also need to be created). I think you need to take a step back, maybe with the aid of a book on relational database design, and think about the various entities you need to model and how they are related in real life. On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:34:01 -0700, Janis wrote: Question number 2: Would it work without having a many to many from ports to transmitters if I show the destroyed ports and the alive ports in the report? Its a many to many but I suppose I could add the date field and then it would be unique. thanks a lot John. "John Nurick" wrote: Janis, This structure doesn't look simple to me. Certainly I can't understand it. This area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics implies to me that there are 1:M relationships between area and router, router and transmitter, transmitter and node, and node and item of statistical data. But elsewhere you say there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. and also mention transmitter ports, which seem to be related M:1 to transmitters. As far as I can make out the object of the exercise is to collate and report on usage statistics (by node? port? transmitter?). This table confuses me: statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic It seems to me that this should include a NodeId field. .... At this stage I feel that the heart of your structure needs to be one or more tables that track the creation (and, presumably, at least in principle, destruction) of nodes. Maybe something along these lines: tblNodes NodeID* PortID (assuming a 1:M relationship between Ports and Nodes) DateCreated ParentNodeID (the node from which this node was split off) DateDestroyed On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:50:01 -0700, Janis wrote: I have a really simple structure regarding a db for an ISP. I need get weekly utilization figures which I get from Excel but would like to do in Access. I'm cross posting this from the design section since no one answered it. area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics areaID area transmitterID AREAID transmitter ports nodeID transmitterId nodes statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic A tricky part is they split the node if the utilization is over 50% and move it to a new router. The node is the pedestal that is connected to the subscribers. Each node has groupings of 4 letter names, for example ABCD,EFGH. The related transmitter ports sometimes have the exact same name ABCD,EFGH. To split the transmitter ,they take one port, for example, ABCD and call it A, ABCD-A and ABCD-B to show the split on the transmitter. They take the first node ABCD corresponds to transmitter ABCD-A and the 2nd EFGH and it corresponds to transmitter ABCD-B to split it if the utilization is over 50%. Sometimes there are more nodes than transmitter ports the ports and nodes aren't always matching in number or names. there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. The nodes are all one group and the ports are all one group hence one to one. When it gets over 50% it gets split. Some of the nodes get attached to a new transmiter as mentioned above. It is still unique one to one relationship for each area -- router--transmitter to nodes. Its just the transmitter has an A or B extension name showing it was split. I could do a one to many from each port to each node but that wouldn't be worth all the data input and it doesn't seem to be needed since there still is maintained a one to one relationship from the ports to the nodes even if the groupings are moved. QUESTION: Is this better to do in Excel? I get the Excel report from a nAccess db that gets the data from SQL. If I can get to the SQL db then I could do the queries and get the data. The problem with Excel is a new column is added weekly for the nodes over 50% for both tv and internet. Then they have to find which nodes on the tv side are also on the internet side so they can be advised and try to do the work together. The user has to do all these vlookups to find out which nodes are still over 50%. It would be easier in a database at least . They also have to clean the data each week. It seems to be a real mess but I want to be sure my relationships are right before I try it. any advice would be appreciated. -- John Nurick - Access MVP -- John Nurick - Access MVP |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
simple structure question with complicated data[x-post from de
All I can say is thanks you helped me a great deal. I guess there is a
router 1 to many to the ports otherwise you wouldn't know which port it was attached to. I didn't know I was starting a new thread so I will reply to the thread and try to keep all my replies in one reply. "John Nurick" wrote: Janis, Next time please post your reply as a response in the existing thread. Creating a new thread like this makes for confusion. I still don't understand the situation. You say Area 1:M-- Router Ports---1:1Transmitter----1:M Nodes Presumably this should have been Area 1:M-- Router 1:M-- Ports--1:1 Transmitter-- 1:M Nodes If that's the case, the tblNodes table I proposed in my last message tblNodes NodeID* PortID (assuming a 1:M relationship between Ports and Nodes) DateCreated ParentNodeID (the node from which this node was split off) DateDestroyed should be more like tblNodes tblNodeName* (assuming the node names such as ABCD and ABCD-A are reliably unique and stable) TransmitterID (foreign key into tblTransmitters) DateCreated ParentNodeName (the node from which this node was split off or segmented.) A normalised structure based around this will let you produce the reports you want (as I understand them). More commments inline. On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:04:00 -0700, Janis wrote: I thought it was all one to many and it seemed simple.you are right. routers have ports. The transmitter however is a separate entity one object without ports. The individual nodes are separate entities and get moved around. So it is re- wired to the transmitters and routers. The node doesn't get destroyed it just gets moved. Do Nodes get moved from one Transmitter to another? If they do, do you need to track their movements? If you are counting a move as a new node then possibly it was destroyed in that sense. HOWEVER, they would like to see the old node without any utilization on the report to show what happened. If the old ports are shown could this be a many to many?The physical reality is the node is gone but on the report they want to see the old data. QUESTION:So how do I show this in a db? Area 1:M-- Router Ports---1:1Transmitter----1:M Nodes When a node gets segmented part of its traffic gets routed to a new transmitter. The node doesn't change. Then it gets complicated. The old node ABCD is dead. It has no utilization and is in effect destroyed, but they want to see what happened to it. 2 new nodes are created from the one ABCD-A and ABCD-B. So now on this murky report I have to show all 3. QUESTION: How do I do that? thanks, "John Nurick" wrote: Janis, This structure doesn't look simple to me. Certainly I can't understand it. This area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics implies to me that there are 1:M relationships between area and router, router and transmitter, transmitter and node, and node and item of statistical data. But elsewhere you say there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. and also mention transmitter ports, which seem to be related M:1 to transmitters. As far as I can make out the object of the exercise is to collate and report on usage statistics (by node? port? transmitter?). This table confuses me: statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic It seems to me that this should include a NodeId field. .... At this stage I feel that the heart of your structure needs to be one or more tables that track the creation (and, presumably, at least in principle, destruction) of nodes. Maybe something along these lines: tblNodes NodeID* PortID (assuming a 1:M relationship between Ports and Nodes) DateCreated ParentNodeID (the node from which this node was split off) DateDestroyed On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:50:01 -0700, Janis wrote: I have a really simple structure regarding a db for an ISP. I need get weekly utilization figures which I get from Excel but would like to do in Access. I'm cross posting this from the design section since no one answered it. area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics areaID area transmitterID AREAID transmitter ports nodeID transmitterId nodes statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic A tricky part is they split the node if the utilization is over 50% and move it to a new router. The node is the pedestal that is connected to the subscribers. Each node has groupings of 4 letter names, for example ABCD,EFGH. The related transmitter ports sometimes have the exact same name ABCD,EFGH. To split the transmitter ,they take one port, for example, ABCD and call it A, ABCD-A and ABCD-B to show the split on the transmitter. They take the first node ABCD corresponds to transmitter ABCD-A and the 2nd EFGH and it corresponds to transmitter ABCD-B to split it if the utilization is over 50%. Sometimes there are more nodes than transmitter ports the ports and nodes aren't always matching in number or names. there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. The nodes are all one group and the ports are all one group hence one to one. When it gets over 50% it gets split. Some of the nodes get attached to a new transmiter as mentioned above. It is still unique one to one relationship for each area -- router--transmitter to nodes. Its just the transmitter has an A or B extension name showing it was split. I could do a one to many from each port to each node but that wouldn't be worth all the data input and it doesn't seem to be needed since there still is maintained a one to one relationship from the ports to the nodes even if the groupings are moved. QUESTION: Is this better to do in Excel? I get the Excel report from a nAccess db that gets the data from SQL. If I can get to the SQL db then I could do the queries and get the data. The problem with Excel is a new column is added weekly for the nodes over 50% for both tv and internet. Then they have to find which nodes on the tv side are also on the internet side so they can be advised and try to do the work together. The user has to do all these vlookups to find out which nodes are still over 50%. It would be easier in a database at least . They also have to clean the data each week. It seems to be a real mess but I want to be sure my relationships are right before I try it. any advice would be appreciated. -- John Nurick - Access MVP -- John Nurick - Access MVP |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
simple structure question with complicated data[x-post from de
The ports are not really created at least in this db. That all gets done in
a SQL db. For this db it only gets divided but it does get changed. The port has the same name but it gets an A letter. So the port ABCD would become ABCD-A on the old transmitter and ABCD-B on a new transmitter. So the old port ABCD is really does not have any utilization but it still needs to show up on the report. I'M SORRY I WAS SAYING DESTRUCTION OF PORTS I MEANT DESTRUCTION OF NODES AS YOU NOTED EARLIER. Thanks again for your help it was extremely beneficial. "John Nurick" wrote: In your previous message you said there was a 1:1 relationship between Transmitters and Ports. And this is the first mention of Ports being destroyed (and if they're destroyed they also need to be created). I think you need to take a step back, maybe with the aid of a book on relational database design, and think about the various entities you need to model and how they are related in real life. On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:34:01 -0700, Janis wrote: Question number 2: Would it work without having a many to many from ports to transmitters if I show the destroyed ports and the alive ports in the report? Its a many to many but I suppose I could add the date field and then it would be unique. thanks a lot John. "John Nurick" wrote: Janis, This structure doesn't look simple to me. Certainly I can't understand it. This area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics implies to me that there are 1:M relationships between area and router, router and transmitter, transmitter and node, and node and item of statistical data. But elsewhere you say there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. and also mention transmitter ports, which seem to be related M:1 to transmitters. As far as I can make out the object of the exercise is to collate and report on usage statistics (by node? port? transmitter?). This table confuses me: statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic It seems to me that this should include a NodeId field. .... At this stage I feel that the heart of your structure needs to be one or more tables that track the creation (and, presumably, at least in principle, destruction) of nodes. Maybe something along these lines: tblNodes NodeID* PortID (assuming a 1:M relationship between Ports and Nodes) DateCreated ParentNodeID (the node from which this node was split off) DateDestroyed On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:50:01 -0700, Janis wrote: I have a really simple structure regarding a db for an ISP. I need get weekly utilization figures which I get from Excel but would like to do in Access. I'm cross posting this from the design section since no one answered it. area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics areaID area transmitterID AREAID transmitter ports nodeID transmitterId nodes statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic A tricky part is they split the node if the utilization is over 50% and move it to a new router. The node is the pedestal that is connected to the subscribers. Each node has groupings of 4 letter names, for example ABCD,EFGH. The related transmitter ports sometimes have the exact same name ABCD,EFGH. To split the transmitter ,they take one port, for example, ABCD and call it A, ABCD-A and ABCD-B to show the split on the transmitter. They take the first node ABCD corresponds to transmitter ABCD-A and the 2nd EFGH and it corresponds to transmitter ABCD-B to split it if the utilization is over 50%. Sometimes there are more nodes than transmitter ports the ports and nodes aren't always matching in number or names. there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. The nodes are all one group and the ports are all one group hence one to one. When it gets over 50% it gets split. Some of the nodes get attached to a new transmiter as mentioned above. It is still unique one to one relationship for each area -- router--transmitter to nodes. Its just the transmitter has an A or B extension name showing it was split. I could do a one to many from each port to each node but that wouldn't be worth all the data input and it doesn't seem to be needed since there still is maintained a one to one relationship from the ports to the nodes even if the groupings are moved. QUESTION: Is this better to do in Excel? I get the Excel report from a nAccess db that gets the data from SQL. If I can get to the SQL db then I could do the queries and get the data. The problem with Excel is a new column is added weekly for the nodes over 50% for both tv and internet. Then they have to find which nodes on the tv side are also on the internet side so they can be advised and try to do the work together. The user has to do all these vlookups to find out which nodes are still over 50%. It would be easier in a database at least . They also have to clean the data each week. It seems to be a real mess but I want to be sure my relationships are right before I try it. any advice would be appreciated. -- John Nurick - Access MVP -- John Nurick - Access MVP |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
simple structure question with complicated data[x-post from de
thanks immensely
"John Nurick" wrote: In your previous message you said there was a 1:1 relationship between Transmitters and Ports. And this is the first mention of Ports being destroyed (and if they're destroyed they also need to be created). I think you need to take a step back, maybe with the aid of a book on relational database design, and think about the various entities you need to model and how they are related in real life. On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:34:01 -0700, Janis wrote: Question number 2: Would it work without having a many to many from ports to transmitters if I show the destroyed ports and the alive ports in the report? Its a many to many but I suppose I could add the date field and then it would be unique. thanks a lot John. "John Nurick" wrote: Janis, This structure doesn't look simple to me. Certainly I can't understand it. This area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics implies to me that there are 1:M relationships between area and router, router and transmitter, transmitter and node, and node and item of statistical data. But elsewhere you say there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. and also mention transmitter ports, which seem to be related M:1 to transmitters. As far as I can make out the object of the exercise is to collate and report on usage statistics (by node? port? transmitter?). This table confuses me: statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic It seems to me that this should include a NodeId field. .... At this stage I feel that the heart of your structure needs to be one or more tables that track the creation (and, presumably, at least in principle, destruction) of nodes. Maybe something along these lines: tblNodes NodeID* PortID (assuming a 1:M relationship between Ports and Nodes) DateCreated ParentNodeID (the node from which this node was split off) DateDestroyed On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:50:01 -0700, Janis wrote: I have a really simple structure regarding a db for an ISP. I need get weekly utilization figures which I get from Excel but would like to do in Access. I'm cross posting this from the design section since no one answered it. area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics areaID area transmitterID AREAID transmitter ports nodeID transmitterId nodes statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic A tricky part is they split the node if the utilization is over 50% and move it to a new router. The node is the pedestal that is connected to the subscribers. Each node has groupings of 4 letter names, for example ABCD,EFGH. The related transmitter ports sometimes have the exact same name ABCD,EFGH. To split the transmitter ,they take one port, for example, ABCD and call it A, ABCD-A and ABCD-B to show the split on the transmitter. They take the first node ABCD corresponds to transmitter ABCD-A and the 2nd EFGH and it corresponds to transmitter ABCD-B to split it if the utilization is over 50%. Sometimes there are more nodes than transmitter ports the ports and nodes aren't always matching in number or names. there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. The nodes are all one group and the ports are all one group hence one to one. When it gets over 50% it gets split. Some of the nodes get attached to a new transmiter as mentioned above. It is still unique one to one relationship for each area -- router--transmitter to nodes. Its just the transmitter has an A or B extension name showing it was split. I could do a one to many from each port to each node but that wouldn't be worth all the data input and it doesn't seem to be needed since there still is maintained a one to one relationship from the ports to the nodes even if the groupings are moved. QUESTION: Is this better to do in Excel? I get the Excel report from a nAccess db that gets the data from SQL. If I can get to the SQL db then I could do the queries and get the data. The problem with Excel is a new column is added weekly for the nodes over 50% for both tv and internet. Then they have to find which nodes on the tv side are also on the internet side so they can be advised and try to do the work together. The user has to do all these vlookups to find out which nodes are still over 50%. It would be easier in a database at least . They also have to clean the data each week. It seems to be a real mess but I want to be sure my relationships are right before I try it. any advice would be appreciated. -- John Nurick - Access MVP -- John Nurick - Access MVP |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
simple structure question with complicated data[x-post from de
SEe my in line note.
"John Nurick" wrote: Janis, Next time please post your reply as a response in the existing thread. Creating a new thread like this makes for confusion. I still don't understand the situation. You say Area 1:M-- Router Ports---1:1Transmitter----1:M Nodes Presumably this should have been Area 1:M-- Router 1:M-- Ports--1:1 Transmitter-- 1:M Nodes If that's the case, the tblNodes table I proposed in my last message tblNodes NodeID* PortID (assuming a 1:M relationship between Ports and Nodes) DateCreated ParentNodeID (the node from which this node was split off) DateDestroyed should be more like tblNodes tblNodeName* (assuming the node names such as ABCD and ABCD-A are reliably unique and stable) TransmitterID (foreign key into tblTransmitters) DateCreated ParentNodeName (the node from which this node was split off or segmented.) A normalised structure based around this will let you produce the reports you want (as I understand them). More commments inline. On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:04:00 -0700, Janis wrote: I thought it was all one to many and it seemed simple.you are right. routers have ports. The transmitter however is a separate entity one object without ports. The individual nodes are separate entities and get moved around. So it is re- wired to the transmitters and routers. The node doesn't get destroyed it just gets moved. Do Nodes get moved from one Transmitter to another? If they do, do you need to track their movements? YES nodes do get moved to another transmitter when they get segmented because that is the purpose to allow more traffice on another transmitter. If you are counting a move as a new node then possibly it was destroyed in that sense. HOWEVER, they would like to see the old node without any utilization on the report to show what happened. If the old ports are shown could this be a many to many?The physical reality is the node is gone but on the report they want to see the old data. QUESTION:So how do I show this in a db? Area 1:M-- Router Ports---1:1Transmitter----1:M Nodes When a node gets segmented part of its traffic gets routed to a new transmitter. The node doesn't change. Then it gets complicated. The old node ABCD is dead. It has no utilization and is in effect destroyed, but they want to see what happened to it. 2 new nodes are created from the one ABCD-A and ABCD-B. So now on this murky report I have to show all 3. QUESTION: How do I do that? thanks, "John Nurick" wrote: Janis, This structure doesn't look simple to me. Certainly I can't understand it. This area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics implies to me that there are 1:M relationships between area and router, router and transmitter, transmitter and node, and node and item of statistical data. But elsewhere you say there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. and also mention transmitter ports, which seem to be related M:1 to transmitters. As far as I can make out the object of the exercise is to collate and report on usage statistics (by node? port? transmitter?). This table confuses me: statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic It seems to me that this should include a NodeId field. .... At this stage I feel that the heart of your structure needs to be one or more tables that track the creation (and, presumably, at least in principle, destruction) of nodes. Maybe something along these lines: tblNodes NodeID* PortID (assuming a 1:M relationship between Ports and Nodes) DateCreated ParentNodeID (the node from which this node was split off) DateDestroyed On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:50:01 -0700, Janis wrote: I have a really simple structure regarding a db for an ISP. I need get weekly utilization figures which I get from Excel but would like to do in Access. I'm cross posting this from the design section since no one answered it. area--router--transmistter--nodeID--statistics areaID area transmitterID AREAID transmitter ports nodeID transmitterId nodes statisticsID weekending internet traffic t.v. traffic A tricky part is they split the node if the utilization is over 50% and move it to a new router. The node is the pedestal that is connected to the subscribers. Each node has groupings of 4 letter names, for example ABCD,EFGH. The related transmitter ports sometimes have the exact same name ABCD,EFGH. To split the transmitter ,they take one port, for example, ABCD and call it A, ABCD-A and ABCD-B to show the split on the transmitter. They take the first node ABCD corresponds to transmitter ABCD-A and the 2nd EFGH and it corresponds to transmitter ABCD-B to split it if the utilization is over 50%. Sometimes there are more nodes than transmitter ports the ports and nodes aren't always matching in number or names. there is a one to one relationship from the transmitter to the nodes. The nodes are all one group and the ports are all one group hence one to one. When it gets over 50% it gets split. Some of the nodes get attached to a new transmiter as mentioned above. It is still unique one to one relationship for each area -- router--transmitter to nodes. Its just the transmitter has an A or B extension name showing it was split. I could do a one to many from each port to each node but that wouldn't be worth all the data input and it doesn't seem to be needed since there still is maintained a one to one relationship from the ports to the nodes even if the groupings are moved. QUESTION: Is this better to do in Excel? I get the Excel report from a nAccess db that gets the data from SQL. If I can get to the SQL db then I could do the queries and get the data. The problem with Excel is a new column is added weekly for the nodes over 50% for both tv and internet. Then they have to find which nodes on the tv side are also on the internet side so they can be advised and try to do the work together. The user has to do all these vlookups to find out which nodes are still over 50%. It would be easier in a database at least . They also have to clean the data each week. It seems to be a real mess but I want to be sure my relationships are right before I try it. any advice would be appreciated. -- John Nurick - Access MVP -- John Nurick - Access MVP |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|