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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Tables and relationships?
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:34:01 -0800, awsmitty
wrote: Indeed, you can do this and much more once you have an efficient database design. And believe it or not, for the most part all database designers agree on what that structure should be, given a set of requirements. The field names may be different, but you will see very similar structures. This is because relational database design is firmly rooted in the mathematics of set theory and a rookie developer cannot just come around and proclaim that math does not apply to him/her. Once this approach clicks for you, you will see more and more advantages. And you can always come back here and ask more questions. They will be A LOT easier to answer if you have a correct design. -Tom. Microsoft Access MVP clip Now that table may need to be searchable. John makes a donation, files his taxes, but two years later the IRS comes along and questions it. In the meantime John has lost his receipt. John, or for that matter the IRS might come to us to verify that John donated all this stuff. I can find John easily enough, just give me his address and Ill use the same routine as when I found him the first time. I assume what Tom was trying to do, and what Im interested in doing just as an educational exersize, is to manage the data efficiently and conveniently, and learn a little along the way. I assume Toms method would be more efficient. Convenient, well, for you guys that know this forwards and backward, maybe so, but for me, I have to really keep my eye on the ball or Ill loose track of whats gong on. But, it could prove to be interesting. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|