View Single Post
  #3  
Old November 30th, 2005, 05:37 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default To Split, or not to split (a table)! That is the question...

"1" 1@1 wrote in :

a) Keep the table schema as is and let the relationships split the
equipment to be serviced from that is to be standardized or,


In priniciple, I cannot see any problem with your design as it is. I am
assuming there are other differences between Services and
Standardisations that you have not mentioned he NewPartsFitted,
DeviationFromZero and so on. If not, you might well be better off with a
single Interventions table but that is probably up to you.

If 99% of the equipment needs only Service _or_ Standardisation, then you
have to be able to cope with the other 1%. Do they get two records for
two interventions, or do you need a new DualInspection type or what?

It's easy to find out what has never been inspected:

select equipid from equipment
where equipid not in
( select distinct equipid from services
union
select distinct equipid from standardisations
)

and what is due for new servicing (more than six months ago, etc):

select equipid from services
where completeddate dateadd("m", Date(), -6)

union

select equipid from qryNeverBeenSeen // see above!


and so on.


b) Split the equipment table into two tables (ServEquip, StandEquip)
so that every record of each table relates to every record one the
other??


Yuk: this sounds like a major maintenance nightmare. Keep one Type Of
Thing in one Table!

Hope that helps


Tim F