A Microsoft Office (Excel, Word) forum. OfficeFrustration

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.

Go Back   Home » OfficeFrustration forum » Microsoft Access » Database Design
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  

Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old January 29th, 2008, 01:32 PM posted to comp.databases.ms-access,comp.databases.theory,microsoft.public.access,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Frank Hamersley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?

Keith Wilby wrote:
"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
.89...

If your impression of Access comes from futzing with it for 10
minutes and from encountering kludged-together apps created by your
company receptionist, then you just haven't a clue what Access
offers, either as an application development platform or as a data
store (using its native Jet engine).


True - but N/A to moi!


I frequently have Oracle die-hards tell me (and more worryingly,
management)
that Access is a toy that will fall over when more than a couple of users
log on. I have yet to have any of them rise to the challenge of siting a
single example of a correctly set up, split application in Access that
isn't
stable under load. Mine are certainly stable and reliable, the only
problematic ones are set up by dabblers.


Therein lies its criminality g - it screams encouragement for dabblers
and barely offers anything for artisans except stupendous numbers of
mouse clicks!

Take for instance the number of versions it took before separating the
data from the "code" was a core feature by way of the provision of a
menu option to reattach a data .mdb!

None of the aforementioned
die-hards even know what a split Access application is.


Cheers, Frank.
  #162  
Old January 29th, 2008, 01:44 PM posted to comp.databases.ms-access,comp.databases.theory,microsoft.public.access,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Keith Wilby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 812
Default Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?

"Frank Hamersley" wrote in message
...

provision of a menu option to reattach a data .mdb!


Is it just me or is that complete gibberish? Reattach?

  #163  
Old January 29th, 2008, 01:47 PM posted to comp.databases.ms-access,comp.databases.theory,microsoft.public.access,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign,microsoft.public.sqlserver
David Cressey[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?


"James A. Fortune" wrote in message
...

I concede the point that for the two keys of the junction table, using
an autonumber primary key is overkill except for special situations.



Good. We have agreement on the essentials here.


  #164  
Old January 29th, 2008, 01:52 PM posted to comp.databases.ms-access,comp.databases.theory,microsoft.public.access,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign,microsoft.public.sqlserver
David Cressey[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?


"Jamie Collins" wrote in message
...
On Jan 28, 11:02 pm, Rob wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "moot". According to:

http://www.usingenglish.com/referenc...oot+point.html

quote
If something's a moot point, there's some disagreement about it: a
debatable point. In the U.S., this expression usually means that there
is no point in debating something, because it just doesn't matter. An
example: If you are arguing over whether to go the beach or to the
park, but you find out the car won't start and you can't go anywhere,
then the destination is said to be a moot point.
/quote

I googled "moot" to make sure I knew what you meant, and was surprised
by the definition. I will take your meaning to be '"there is no point
in debating" whether NULL values in junction tables are ever useful
because they are not'.


Here in the UK I avoid using the word 'moot' when trying to write
'plain English' simply because the US usage has obscured the UK usage
i.e. it can cause confusion.

I'm completely unfamiliar with the UK usage of "moot". What is it?


  #165  
Old January 29th, 2008, 02:10 PM posted to comp.databases.ms-access,comp.databases.theory,microsoft.public.access,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Keith Wilby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 812
Default Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?

"David Cressey" wrote in message
news:zkFnj.391$Be.9@trndny04...

I'm completely unfamiliar with the UK usage of "moot". What is it?



I wasn't aware of any special UK meaning. I'm a UK-nian and to me it means
"debatable". Isn't that what it means in BushLand? :-)

Keith.

  #166  
Old January 29th, 2008, 02:24 PM posted to comp.databases.ms-access, comp.databases.theory,microsoft.public.access, microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign,microsoft.public.sqlserver
Jamie Collins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,705
Default Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?

On Jan 29, 12:52 pm, "David Cressey" wrote:
I'm completely unfamiliar with the UK usage of "moot". What is it?


Obviously I can't speak for the whole of the UK but I would say it was
the literal, dictionary meaning i.e. 'debatable' rather than 'not
worth debating'.

Jamie.

--

  #167  
Old January 29th, 2008, 02:25 PM posted to comp.databases.ms-access,comp.databases.theory,microsoft.public.access,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign,microsoft.public.sqlserver
Roy Hann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?

"David Cressey" wrote in message
news:zkFnj.391$Be.9@trndny04...

Here in the UK I avoid using the word 'moot' when trying to write
'plain English' simply because the US usage has obscured the UK usage
i.e. it can cause confusion.

I'm completely unfamiliar with the UK usage of "moot". What is it?


Having lived for several decades on both sides of the Atlantic I think I
know. In America the word tends mean "having no practical significance"--a
meaning which is borrowed from the legal profession I think. In the UK to
say something is moot is to say it is "still subject to discussion" or
"undecided".

Roy


  #168  
Old January 29th, 2008, 02:28 PM posted to comp.databases.ms-access, comp.databases.theory,microsoft.public.access, microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign,microsoft.public.sqlserver
JOG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?

On Jan 28, 11:35 pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
JOG wrote
m:



On Jan 27, 8:33 pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
JOG wrote

ps.co m:


I certainly don't think developers should excuse sloppy RDBMS
design just because they are using access (and of course I'm
sure many of the professionals here wouldn't dream of doing so,
despite others laxness).


What *are* you talking about?


Any mistakes in schema design that you can make in Access, you
can make in any other RDBMS.


*Sigh*. Yes, but as bob has pointed out, you've misconstrued my
point. Because it is marketed at different business problems (ones
with few concurrent users, simple domains, comparatively smaller
schema), a lot of Access users can get away with mistakes that
someone using, say, Oracle 11g to keep track of millions of facts
would in the end get called up on. So that's nothing to do with
the technology, just the market, which makes your empassioned
defence of the super-duper jetomatic engine a bit misplaced.


I'm not defending Jet here. I'm pointing out a logical error in your
attributing to "Access" something that has nothing specifically to
do with Access.


So the way the Access product is marketed has nothing to do with
Access? Genius David You could of course read through the original
point again, and well, actually read what it said, rather than just
imagining what you want it to say to keep your indignation going.

It said nothing about schema, engines, or RM. Just that db's which
employ Access _on average_ tend to be smaller, handle less data, less
updating, etc, (because that's the market MS aims the product at) and
so any mistakes are _on average_ less likely to be as deleterious, or
may never even be highlighted at all.

Its fine to disagree, but for you to completely misunderstand such a
simple statement as an attack on Access, well, its frankly all a bit
embarrassing.


I'll also ignore the diatribe that followed in light of your
misunderstanding. (And the fact that you share my mother's maiden
name, so may well be long distant family...).


I do not misunderstand. You clearly are not distinguishing a
development platform (Access) from a database engine (Jet) and from
the fact that the issue at hand is a schem design question, and has
nothing whatsoever to do with Access, or with any particular
database engine.

That you can't seem to keep this distinction straight in your posts
shows one of two things:

1. massive ignorance of the tools you are disparaging


There is nothing disparaging in saying Access is aimed at a different
market to Oracle's tools. I am suprised you would think that.


2. extremely bad writing skills.

Of maybe it's some of both.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/


  #169  
Old January 29th, 2008, 03:01 PM posted to comp.databases.ms-access,comp.databases.theory,microsoft.public.access,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Keith Wilby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 812
Default Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?

"Roy Hann" wrote in message
...

In America the word tends mean "having no practical significance"--a
meaning which is borrowed from the legal profession I think. In the UK to
say something is moot is to say it is "still subject to discussion" or
"undecided".


But then again the US don't have colour television programmes either do
they? Or aluminium ;-)

Keith.

  #170  
Old January 29th, 2008, 03:19 PM posted to comp.databases.ms-access, comp.databases.theory,microsoft.public.access, microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
JOG
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Separate PK in Jxn Tbl?

On Jan 29, 12:20 am, Bob Badour wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
JOG wrote in

m:


On Jan 27, 8:33 pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:


JOG wrote

ps.co m:


I certainly don't think developers should excuse sloppy RDBMS
design just because they are using access (and of course I'm
sure many of the professionals here wouldn't dream of doing so,
despite others laxness).


What *are* you talking about?


Any mistakes in schema design that you can make in Access, you
can make in any other RDBMS.


*Sigh*. Yes, but as bob has pointed out, you've misconstrued my
point. Because it is marketed at different business problems (ones
with few concurrent users, simple domains, comparatively smaller
schema), a lot of Access users can get away with mistakes that
someone using, say, Oracle 11g to keep track of millions of facts
would in the end get called up on. So that's nothing to do with
the technology, just the market, which makes your empassioned
defence of the super-duper jetomatic engine a bit misplaced.


I'm not defending Jet here. I'm pointing out a logical error in your
attributing to "Access" something that has nothing specifically to
do with Access.


You are an idiot. Jim didn't attribute anything to Access. In fact, he
said it would be wrong to let an ignoramus blame his ignorance on the tool.

I'll also ignore the diatribe that followed in light of your
misunderstanding. (And the fact that you share my mother's maiden
name, so may well be long distant family...).


I do not misunderstand.


Then I can only conclude you lack the capacity to comprehend the
relatively simple written english that appears above.


It is strange isn't it. People seem to make up what they /want/ you to
have said, and no matter how clearly you state things, they will
superimpose their imaginary version over the top. Its bizarre, but you
see it so much.


[irrelevancies snipped]


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 OfficeFrustration.
The comments are property of their posters.