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
|
|||
|
|||
tables not relating properly
3 tables of referral sources and one 'join' table with an ID field common to
all 3 (Resource ID). In Table 1, all items are Resource ID #1; in Table 2, all items are Resource ID #3; in Table 3, the items are all other Resource ID #s but ot #1 or #3. I've set the relationships to be: Table 4 (the Resource ID join table) has a one-to-many relationship with ??? all the tables or only Table 3. I'm trying to join them all in a query so I can group them into a form, basically in the 3 categories represented by the tables...This is probably unclear, but I'm unable to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I first thought that Table 4 related to Tables 1 and 2 as a one-to-one, but I can't seem to set that up in the Relationships window and now I'm very confused. I bet I'm totally off base here -- I've relied to date on trial-and-error in my relationship setting and reading about it isn't helping. Suggestion(s)? Many thanks -- Meredith |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
tables not relating properly
Meredith
?!Are you saying that you have tables named after your Resources? Like a Meredith table and a Jeff table and a William table? That sounds more like a spreadsheet than a well-normalized relational database. Before you proceed, take a look at "normalization" -- Access isn't a spreadsheet. Consider posting back with a description of your table structure more like: tblPerson PersonID FirstName LastName tblClub ClubID ClubName trelMembership PersonID ClubID DateOfMembership (this is just a made up example to show a way you can post your table structure via email.) Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... 3 tables of referral sources and one 'join' table with an ID field common to all 3 (Resource ID). In Table 1, all items are Resource ID #1; in Table 2, all items are Resource ID #3; in Table 3, the items are all other Resource ID #s but ot #1 or #3. I've set the relationships to be: Table 4 (the Resource ID join table) has a one-to-many relationship with ??? all the tables or only Table 3. I'm trying to join them all in a query so I can group them into a form, basically in the 3 categories represented by the tables...This is probably unclear, but I'm unable to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I first thought that Table 4 related to Tables 1 and 2 as a one-to-one, but I can't seem to set that up in the Relationships window and now I'm very confused. I bet I'm totally off base here -- I've relied to date on trial-and-error in my relationship setting and reading about it isn't helping. Suggestion(s)? Many thanks -- Meredith |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
tables not relating properly
On 24 Aug, 00:13, "Jeff Boyce" wrote:
3 tables of referral sources and one 'join' table with an ID field common to all 3 (Resource ID). In Table 1, all items are Resource ID #1; in Table 2, all items are Resource ID #3; in Table 3, the items are all other Resource ID #s but ot #1 or #3. I've set the relationships to be: Table 4 (the Resource ID join table) has a one-to-many relationship with ??? all the tables or only Table 3. I'm trying to join them all in a query so I can group them into a form, basically in the 3 categories represented by the tables...This is probably unclear, but I'm unable to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I first thought that Table 4 related to Tables 1 and 2 as a one-to-one ?!Are you saying that you have tables named after your Resources? Like a Meredith table and a Jeff table and a William table? That sounds more like a spreadsheet than a well-normalized relational database. Giving the OP the benefit of the doubt, I'd say it sounds like subclassing to me, so it may indeed be normalized. Consider the following description of table structure (3NF at least, I think) based on your example: CREATE TABLE Persons ( FirstName VARCHAR(35) NOT NULL, LastName VARCHAR(35) NOT NULL, UNIQUE (FirstName, LastName) ) ; CREATE TABLE Jeffs ( FirstName VARCHAR(35) NOT NULL, LastName VARCHAR(35) NOT NULL, UNIQUE (FirstName, LastName), FOREIGN KEY (FirstName, LastName) REFERENCES Persons (FirstName, LastName), CHECK (FirstName = 'Jeff') ) ; CREATE TABLE Merediths ( FirstName VARCHAR(35) NOT NULL, LastName VARCHAR(35) NOT NULL, UNIQUE (FirstName, LastName), FOREIGN KEY (FirstName, LastName) REFERENCES Persons (FirstName, LastName), CHECK (FirstName = 'Meredith') ) ; CREATE TABLE Williams ( FirstName VARCHAR(35) NOT NULL, LastName VARCHAR(35) NOT NULL, UNIQUE (FirstName, LastName), FOREIGN KEY (FirstName, LastName) REFERENCES Persons (FirstName, LastName), CHECK (FirstName = 'William') ) ; Jamie. -- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
tables not relating properly
Thanks for your comments -- you're right; I didn't post the table
descriptions very clearly. The goal is a form for Admissions in my hospital; they need to post the referral source amond other things at new patient intake, and I wanted to divide that into 3 large categories for simplicity and to avoid the intake person having to deal with a 200+ entry list. So, I set up: Tbl 1 General Referrals (approx 30; these are 'types' such as Family/Friends, Internet, etc.) Resource ID (category as in: Hospital, Legal, etc) All are Resource ID #1 Referral Source ID (unique) Referral Source Name Tbl 2 Agencies (approx. 50; these are specific entities such as Baptist Children's Home) Resource ID -- all are Resource ID #2 Referral Source ID Agency Name Tbl 3 Specific Resources (approx. 50; these are grouped by types as in 5 legal entities, 7 hospitals/ERs, 10 MHMRs, etc. -- mixed Resource ID #s) Resource ID Referral Source ID Specific Resource Name Tbl 4 Resource ID Table (this is intended to be the junction table, linking the others) Resource ID Resource Category Name If there's a better strategy than what I've thought up, please suggest it -- I appreciate your help. Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith ?!Are you saying that you have tables named after your Resources? Like a Meredith table and a Jeff table and a William table? That sounds more like a spreadsheet than a well-normalized relational database. Before you proceed, take a look at "normalization" -- Access isn't a spreadsheet. Consider posting back with a description of your table structure more like: tblPerson PersonID FirstName LastName tblClub ClubID ClubName trelMembership PersonID ClubID DateOfMembership (this is just a made up example to show a way you can post your table structure via email.) Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... 3 tables of referral sources and one 'join' table with an ID field common to all 3 (Resource ID). In Table 1, all items are Resource ID #1; in Table 2, all items are Resource ID #3; in Table 3, the items are all other Resource ID #s but ot #1 or #3. I've set the relationships to be: Table 4 (the Resource ID join table) has a one-to-many relationship with ??? all the tables or only Table 3. I'm trying to join them all in a query so I can group them into a form, basically in the 3 categories represented by the tables...This is probably unclear, but I'm unable to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I first thought that Table 4 related to Tables 1 and 2 as a one-to-one, but I can't seem to set that up in the Relationships window and now I'm very confused. I bet I'm totally off base here -- I've relied to date on trial-and-error in my relationship setting and reading about it isn't helping. Suggestion(s)? Many thanks -- Meredith |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
tables not relating properly
Meredith
Let me see if I can paraphrase your data (which seems to only be focused on the referral aspects at the moment): * You have Patients * Patients are Referred * A Patient Referral comes from a single Source (e.g., John Doe, Child Protective Services, ...) * A Source can be categorized (e.g., General, Agency, Legal, ...) * A Source Category can be sub-categorized (e.g., Friends, Internet, ...) If this is a fair paraphrasing, I'll suggest that you need tables along the lines of the "*"s above. Using a separate table for each referral source (type), and using (essentially) equivalent fields in each of those tables will cause both you and Access considerable headaches. Using separate "duplicate" table structures and embedding data in the table names is what you'd need to do if you were using a spreadsheet, but Access is a relational database. You won't get the best use of Access' features and functions if you try to feed it 'sheet data. Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... Thanks for your comments -- you're right; I didn't post the table descriptions very clearly. The goal is a form for Admissions in my hospital; they need to post the referral source amond other things at new patient intake, and I wanted to divide that into 3 large categories for simplicity and to avoid the intake person having to deal with a 200+ entry list. So, I set up: Tbl 1 General Referrals (approx 30; these are 'types' such as Family/Friends, Internet, etc.) Resource ID (category as in: Hospital, Legal, etc) All are Resource ID #1 Referral Source ID (unique) Referral Source Name Tbl 2 Agencies (approx. 50; these are specific entities such as Baptist Children's Home) Resource ID -- all are Resource ID #2 Referral Source ID Agency Name Tbl 3 Specific Resources (approx. 50; these are grouped by types as in 5 legal entities, 7 hospitals/ERs, 10 MHMRs, etc. -- mixed Resource ID #s) Resource ID Referral Source ID Specific Resource Name Tbl 4 Resource ID Table (this is intended to be the junction table, linking the others) Resource ID Resource Category Name If there's a better strategy than what I've thought up, please suggest it -- I appreciate your help. Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith ?!Are you saying that you have tables named after your Resources? Like a Meredith table and a Jeff table and a William table? That sounds more like a spreadsheet than a well-normalized relational database. Before you proceed, take a look at "normalization" -- Access isn't a spreadsheet. Consider posting back with a description of your table structure more like: tblPerson PersonID FirstName LastName tblClub ClubID ClubName trelMembership PersonID ClubID DateOfMembership (this is just a made up example to show a way you can post your table structure via email.) Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... 3 tables of referral sources and one 'join' table with an ID field common to all 3 (Resource ID). In Table 1, all items are Resource ID #1; in Table 2, all items are Resource ID #3; in Table 3, the items are all other Resource ID #s but ot #1 or #3. I've set the relationships to be: Table 4 (the Resource ID join table) has a one-to-many relationship with ??? all the tables or only Table 3. I'm trying to join them all in a query so I can group them into a form, basically in the 3 categories represented by the tables...This is probably unclear, but I'm unable to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I first thought that Table 4 related to Tables 1 and 2 as a one-to-one, but I can't seem to set that up in the Relationships window and now I'm very confused. I bet I'm totally off base here -- I've relied to date on trial-and-error in my relationship setting and reading about it isn't helping. Suggestion(s)? Many thanks -- Meredith |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
tables not relating properly
Thanks, Jeff -- I'm still thinking about this, but what I hear you suggesting
is similar to what I'm wanting to do. It's logical and easy to do as you suggest, but what I'm uncertain of is how to 'replicate' this structure in an input/intake form. The intake person will hear a specific source name, e.g., Child Protective Services, and as you said, they don't need to know that CPS is in a particular category or sub-category. But, there are probably 200+ such specific sources, and it seems unwieldy to me to put them all into a drop-down box on the intake form... Is that what you're saying, or am I missing something? Many thanks for your help, Jeff, Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith Let me see if I can paraphrase your data (which seems to only be focused on the referral aspects at the moment): * You have Patients * Patients are Referred * A Patient Referral comes from a single Source (e.g., John Doe, Child Protective Services, ...) * A Source can be categorized (e.g., General, Agency, Legal, ...) * A Source Category can be sub-categorized (e.g., Friends, Internet, ...) If this is a fair paraphrasing, I'll suggest that you need tables along the lines of the "*"s above. Using a separate table for each referral source (type), and using (essentially) equivalent fields in each of those tables will cause both you and Access considerable headaches. Using separate "duplicate" table structures and embedding data in the table names is what you'd need to do if you were using a spreadsheet, but Access is a relational database. You won't get the best use of Access' features and functions if you try to feed it 'sheet data. Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... Thanks for your comments -- you're right; I didn't post the table descriptions very clearly. The goal is a form for Admissions in my hospital; they need to post the referral source amond other things at new patient intake, and I wanted to divide that into 3 large categories for simplicity and to avoid the intake person having to deal with a 200+ entry list. So, I set up: Tbl 1 General Referrals (approx 30; these are 'types' such as Family/Friends, Internet, etc.) Resource ID (category as in: Hospital, Legal, etc) All are Resource ID #1 Referral Source ID (unique) Referral Source Name Tbl 2 Agencies (approx. 50; these are specific entities such as Baptist Children's Home) Resource ID -- all are Resource ID #2 Referral Source ID Agency Name Tbl 3 Specific Resources (approx. 50; these are grouped by types as in 5 legal entities, 7 hospitals/ERs, 10 MHMRs, etc. -- mixed Resource ID #s) Resource ID Referral Source ID Specific Resource Name Tbl 4 Resource ID Table (this is intended to be the junction table, linking the others) Resource ID Resource Category Name If there's a better strategy than what I've thought up, please suggest it -- I appreciate your help. Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith ?!Are you saying that you have tables named after your Resources? Like a Meredith table and a Jeff table and a William table? That sounds more like a spreadsheet than a well-normalized relational database. Before you proceed, take a look at "normalization" -- Access isn't a spreadsheet. Consider posting back with a description of your table structure more like: tblPerson PersonID FirstName LastName tblClub ClubID ClubName trelMembership PersonID ClubID DateOfMembership (this is just a made up example to show a way you can post your table structure via email.) Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... 3 tables of referral sources and one 'join' table with an ID field common to all 3 (Resource ID). In Table 1, all items are Resource ID #1; in Table 2, all items are Resource ID #3; in Table 3, the items are all other Resource ID #s but ot #1 or #3. I've set the relationships to be: Table 4 (the Resource ID join table) has a one-to-many relationship with ??? all the tables or only Table 3. I'm trying to join them all in a query so I can group them into a form, basically in the 3 categories represented by the tables...This is probably unclear, but I'm unable to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I first thought that Table 4 related to Tables 1 and 2 as a one-to-one, but I can't seem to set that up in the Relationships window and now I'm very confused. I bet I'm totally off base here -- I've relied to date on trial-and-error in my relationship setting and reading about it isn't helping. Suggestion(s)? Many thanks -- Meredith |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
tables not relating properly
Meredith
So, from an ease-of-use standpoint, a user could select CPS and never know what category and subcategory CPS belongs to. That makes sense. But what about the reverse situation, when the way to limit the possible "agencies" is driven by a choice of categories. One approach might be to have a pair of "cascading combo boxes", where the user picks a category ("Agency") first, which then limits the choices in a second combobox to only agencies (e.g., CPS, American Cancer Society, ...). With Access, to get the best use of the relationally-oriented features and functions, you really need to get the data nailed down first. After you have "entities" and "relationships" designed, then you can figure out how to use queries, forms, and reports to interact with the users. Good luck! Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... Thanks, Jeff -- I'm still thinking about this, but what I hear you suggesting is similar to what I'm wanting to do. It's logical and easy to do as you suggest, but what I'm uncertain of is how to 'replicate' this structure in an input/intake form. The intake person will hear a specific source name, e.g., Child Protective Services, and as you said, they don't need to know that CPS is in a particular category or sub-category. But, there are probably 200+ such specific sources, and it seems unwieldy to me to put them all into a drop-down box on the intake form... Is that what you're saying, or am I missing something? Many thanks for your help, Jeff, Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith Let me see if I can paraphrase your data (which seems to only be focused on the referral aspects at the moment): * You have Patients * Patients are Referred * A Patient Referral comes from a single Source (e.g., John Doe, Child Protective Services, ...) * A Source can be categorized (e.g., General, Agency, Legal, ...) * A Source Category can be sub-categorized (e.g., Friends, Internet, ...) If this is a fair paraphrasing, I'll suggest that you need tables along the lines of the "*"s above. Using a separate table for each referral source (type), and using (essentially) equivalent fields in each of those tables will cause both you and Access considerable headaches. Using separate "duplicate" table structures and embedding data in the table names is what you'd need to do if you were using a spreadsheet, but Access is a relational database. You won't get the best use of Access' features and functions if you try to feed it 'sheet data. Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... Thanks for your comments -- you're right; I didn't post the table descriptions very clearly. The goal is a form for Admissions in my hospital; they need to post the referral source amond other things at new patient intake, and I wanted to divide that into 3 large categories for simplicity and to avoid the intake person having to deal with a 200+ entry list. So, I set up: Tbl 1 General Referrals (approx 30; these are 'types' such as Family/Friends, Internet, etc.) Resource ID (category as in: Hospital, Legal, etc) All are Resource ID #1 Referral Source ID (unique) Referral Source Name Tbl 2 Agencies (approx. 50; these are specific entities such as Baptist Children's Home) Resource ID -- all are Resource ID #2 Referral Source ID Agency Name Tbl 3 Specific Resources (approx. 50; these are grouped by types as in 5 legal entities, 7 hospitals/ERs, 10 MHMRs, etc. -- mixed Resource ID #s) Resource ID Referral Source ID Specific Resource Name Tbl 4 Resource ID Table (this is intended to be the junction table, linking the others) Resource ID Resource Category Name If there's a better strategy than what I've thought up, please suggest it -- I appreciate your help. Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith ?!Are you saying that you have tables named after your Resources? Like a Meredith table and a Jeff table and a William table? That sounds more like a spreadsheet than a well-normalized relational database. Before you proceed, take a look at "normalization" -- Access isn't a spreadsheet. Consider posting back with a description of your table structure more like: tblPerson PersonID FirstName LastName tblClub ClubID ClubName trelMembership PersonID ClubID DateOfMembership (this is just a made up example to show a way you can post your table structure via email.) Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... 3 tables of referral sources and one 'join' table with an ID field common to all 3 (Resource ID). In Table 1, all items are Resource ID #1; in Table 2, all items are Resource ID #3; in Table 3, the items are all other Resource ID #s but ot #1 or #3. I've set the relationships to be: Table 4 (the Resource ID join table) has a one-to-many relationship with ??? all the tables or only Table 3. I'm trying to join them all in a query so I can group them into a form, basically in the 3 categories represented by the tables...This is probably unclear, but I'm unable to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I first thought that Table 4 related to Tables 1 and 2 as a one-to-one, but I can't seem to set that up in the Relationships window and now I'm very confused. I bet I'm totally off base here -- I've relied to date on trial-and-error in my relationship setting and reading about it isn't helping. Suggestion(s)? Many thanks -- Meredith |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
tables not relating properly
I understand what you're saying about the importance of the early design and
setting relationships, which is why I haven't gone ahead and created the tables or the form until I understand the underpinnings. But, part of designing the database has to take into account its ultimate purpose, so I'm also thinking about that -- and I don't think cascading boxes will work because they require the user to know which category an item belongs to upfront. That still leaves me with the dilemma of how to make it easy on the user to put in/choose a referral source and also design the tables with an eye toward being able to query them intelligently later -- Thanks, Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith So, from an ease-of-use standpoint, a user could select CPS and never know what category and subcategory CPS belongs to. That makes sense. But what about the reverse situation, when the way to limit the possible "agencies" is driven by a choice of categories. One approach might be to have a pair of "cascading combo boxes", where the user picks a category ("Agency") first, which then limits the choices in a second combobox to only agencies (e.g., CPS, American Cancer Society, ...). With Access, to get the best use of the relationally-oriented features and functions, you really need to get the data nailed down first. After you have "entities" and "relationships" designed, then you can figure out how to use queries, forms, and reports to interact with the users. Good luck! Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... Thanks, Jeff -- I'm still thinking about this, but what I hear you suggesting is similar to what I'm wanting to do. It's logical and easy to do as you suggest, but what I'm uncertain of is how to 'replicate' this structure in an input/intake form. The intake person will hear a specific source name, e.g., Child Protective Services, and as you said, they don't need to know that CPS is in a particular category or sub-category. But, there are probably 200+ such specific sources, and it seems unwieldy to me to put them all into a drop-down box on the intake form... Is that what you're saying, or am I missing something? Many thanks for your help, Jeff, Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith Let me see if I can paraphrase your data (which seems to only be focused on the referral aspects at the moment): * You have Patients * Patients are Referred * A Patient Referral comes from a single Source (e.g., John Doe, Child Protective Services, ...) * A Source can be categorized (e.g., General, Agency, Legal, ...) * A Source Category can be sub-categorized (e.g., Friends, Internet, ...) If this is a fair paraphrasing, I'll suggest that you need tables along the lines of the "*"s above. Using a separate table for each referral source (type), and using (essentially) equivalent fields in each of those tables will cause both you and Access considerable headaches. Using separate "duplicate" table structures and embedding data in the table names is what you'd need to do if you were using a spreadsheet, but Access is a relational database. You won't get the best use of Access' features and functions if you try to feed it 'sheet data. Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... Thanks for your comments -- you're right; I didn't post the table descriptions very clearly. The goal is a form for Admissions in my hospital; they need to post the referral source amond other things at new patient intake, and I wanted to divide that into 3 large categories for simplicity and to avoid the intake person having to deal with a 200+ entry list. So, I set up: Tbl 1 General Referrals (approx 30; these are 'types' such as Family/Friends, Internet, etc.) Resource ID (category as in: Hospital, Legal, etc) All are Resource ID #1 Referral Source ID (unique) Referral Source Name Tbl 2 Agencies (approx. 50; these are specific entities such as Baptist Children's Home) Resource ID -- all are Resource ID #2 Referral Source ID Agency Name Tbl 3 Specific Resources (approx. 50; these are grouped by types as in 5 legal entities, 7 hospitals/ERs, 10 MHMRs, etc. -- mixed Resource ID #s) Resource ID Referral Source ID Specific Resource Name Tbl 4 Resource ID Table (this is intended to be the junction table, linking the others) Resource ID Resource Category Name If there's a better strategy than what I've thought up, please suggest it -- I appreciate your help. Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith ?!Are you saying that you have tables named after your Resources? Like a Meredith table and a Jeff table and a William table? That sounds more like a spreadsheet than a well-normalized relational database. Before you proceed, take a look at "normalization" -- Access isn't a spreadsheet. Consider posting back with a description of your table structure more like: tblPerson PersonID FirstName LastName tblClub ClubID ClubName trelMembership PersonID ClubID DateOfMembership (this is just a made up example to show a way you can post your table structure via email.) Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... 3 tables of referral sources and one 'join' table with an ID field common to all 3 (Resource ID). In Table 1, all items are Resource ID #1; in Table 2, all items are Resource ID #3; in Table 3, the items are all other Resource ID #s but ot #1 or #3. I've set the relationships to be: Table 4 (the Resource ID join table) has a one-to-many relationship with ??? all the tables or only Table 3. I'm trying to join them all in a query so I can group them into a form, basically in the 3 categories represented by the tables...This is probably unclear, but I'm unable to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I first thought that Table 4 related to Tables 1 and 2 as a one-to-one, but I can't seem to set that up in the Relationships window and now I'm very confused. I bet I'm totally off base here -- I've relied to date on trial-and-error in my relationship setting and reading about it isn't helping. Suggestion(s)? Many thanks -- Meredith |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
tables not relating properly
One possibility is to have a Referral table with a field for ReferralType.
In ReferralType you could limit the choice to General, Agency, or Specific. The user could select one of those categories from a combo box, which would limit the list to just the Referrals in that category. The combo box could have another category for All. If this approach sounds useful, here is some information about adding (All) as a choice in the combo box. If the user knows the category, they can have a filtered list; if not, they choose (All) and end up with the full list. There are techniques for managing truly unwieldy lists consisting of thousands of records, but for just a few hundred you should do OK just by setting the combo box Auto Expand property to Yes. If the user types "M" they will see the beginning of the entries that start with "M". Typing "Me" may bring them to "Melinda", and then it is a simple matter to scroll down to "Meredith". Or they can keep typing until they see the entry they are seeking. The real trick here, it seems to me, is data integrity in the ReferralType list. You need to guard against the duplicate entries "Child Protective Services", "CPS", "C.P.S.", "Child Protective Svcs.", and so forth. You may need to enter more information into the referral table than you think may be needed, and to check for duplication in the address or phone number fields, or an ID number, or probably some combination of fields in order to assure there is a single entry for Child Protective Services. A monthly review of the full list will help keep things in order. A few hundred choices won't be a problem, but alternate names or categories for the same entity could be. "MeredithS" wrote in message ... I understand what you're saying about the importance of the early design and setting relationships, which is why I haven't gone ahead and created the tables or the form until I understand the underpinnings. But, part of designing the database has to take into account its ultimate purpose, so I'm also thinking about that -- and I don't think cascading boxes will work because they require the user to know which category an item belongs to upfront. That still leaves me with the dilemma of how to make it easy on the user to put in/choose a referral source and also design the tables with an eye toward being able to query them intelligently later -- Thanks, Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith So, from an ease-of-use standpoint, a user could select CPS and never know what category and subcategory CPS belongs to. That makes sense. But what about the reverse situation, when the way to limit the possible "agencies" is driven by a choice of categories. One approach might be to have a pair of "cascading combo boxes", where the user picks a category ("Agency") first, which then limits the choices in a second combobox to only agencies (e.g., CPS, American Cancer Society, ...). With Access, to get the best use of the relationally-oriented features and functions, you really need to get the data nailed down first. After you have "entities" and "relationships" designed, then you can figure out how to use queries, forms, and reports to interact with the users. Good luck! Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... Thanks, Jeff -- I'm still thinking about this, but what I hear you suggesting is similar to what I'm wanting to do. It's logical and easy to do as you suggest, but what I'm uncertain of is how to 'replicate' this structure in an input/intake form. The intake person will hear a specific source name, e.g., Child Protective Services, and as you said, they don't need to know that CPS is in a particular category or sub-category. But, there are probably 200+ such specific sources, and it seems unwieldy to me to put them all into a drop-down box on the intake form... Is that what you're saying, or am I missing something? Many thanks for your help, Jeff, Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith Let me see if I can paraphrase your data (which seems to only be focused on the referral aspects at the moment): * You have Patients * Patients are Referred * A Patient Referral comes from a single Source (e.g., John Doe, Child Protective Services, ...) * A Source can be categorized (e.g., General, Agency, Legal, ...) * A Source Category can be sub-categorized (e.g., Friends, Internet, ...) If this is a fair paraphrasing, I'll suggest that you need tables along the lines of the "*"s above. Using a separate table for each referral source (type), and using (essentially) equivalent fields in each of those tables will cause both you and Access considerable headaches. Using separate "duplicate" table structures and embedding data in the table names is what you'd need to do if you were using a spreadsheet, but Access is a relational database. You won't get the best use of Access' features and functions if you try to feed it 'sheet data. Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... Thanks for your comments -- you're right; I didn't post the table descriptions very clearly. The goal is a form for Admissions in my hospital; they need to post the referral source amond other things at new patient intake, and I wanted to divide that into 3 large categories for simplicity and to avoid the intake person having to deal with a 200+ entry list. So, I set up: Tbl 1 General Referrals (approx 30; these are 'types' such as Family/Friends, Internet, etc.) Resource ID (category as in: Hospital, Legal, etc) All are Resource ID #1 Referral Source ID (unique) Referral Source Name Tbl 2 Agencies (approx. 50; these are specific entities such as Baptist Children's Home) Resource ID -- all are Resource ID #2 Referral Source ID Agency Name Tbl 3 Specific Resources (approx. 50; these are grouped by types as in 5 legal entities, 7 hospitals/ERs, 10 MHMRs, etc. -- mixed Resource ID #s) Resource ID Referral Source ID Specific Resource Name Tbl 4 Resource ID Table (this is intended to be the junction table, linking the others) Resource ID Resource Category Name If there's a better strategy than what I've thought up, please suggest it -- I appreciate your help. Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith ?!Are you saying that you have tables named after your Resources? Like a Meredith table and a Jeff table and a William table? That sounds more like a spreadsheet than a well-normalized relational database. Before you proceed, take a look at "normalization" -- Access isn't a spreadsheet. Consider posting back with a description of your table structure more like: tblPerson PersonID FirstName LastName tblClub ClubID ClubName trelMembership PersonID ClubID DateOfMembership (this is just a made up example to show a way you can post your table structure via email.) Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... 3 tables of referral sources and one 'join' table with an ID field common to all 3 (Resource ID). In Table 1, all items are Resource ID #1; in Table 2, all items are Resource ID #3; in Table 3, the items are all other Resource ID #s but ot #1 or #3. I've set the relationships to be: Table 4 (the Resource ID join table) has a one-to-many relationship with ??? all the tables or only Table 3. I'm trying to join them all in a query so I can group them into a form, basically in the 3 categories represented by the tables...This is probably unclear, but I'm unable to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I first thought that Table 4 related to Tables 1 and 2 as a one-to-one, but I can't seem to set that up in the Relationships window and now I'm very confused. I bet I'm totally off base here -- I've relied to date on trial-and-error in my relationship setting and reading about it isn't helping. Suggestion(s)? Many thanks -- Meredith |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
tables not relating properly
Thank you, Bruce. This seems like a reasonable approach. I haven't created a
combo box that would allow choices by a particular field? Not sure what that is, even ... I may take the simple way out and just put the whole list into one box as you also suggested. I'd still include the categories in the underyling table for future reporting/marketing purposes, of course. If you have time, could you point me in the right direction for creating a multi-option combo box? Maybe I do know and I don't realize I know. Ha! Meredith "BruceM" wrote: One possibility is to have a Referral table with a field for ReferralType. In ReferralType you could limit the choice to General, Agency, or Specific. The user could select one of those categories from a combo box, which would limit the list to just the Referrals in that category. The combo box could have another category for All. If this approach sounds useful, here is some information about adding (All) as a choice in the combo box. If the user knows the category, they can have a filtered list; if not, they choose (All) and end up with the full list. There are techniques for managing truly unwieldy lists consisting of thousands of records, but for just a few hundred you should do OK just by setting the combo box Auto Expand property to Yes. If the user types "M" they will see the beginning of the entries that start with "M". Typing "Me" may bring them to "Melinda", and then it is a simple matter to scroll down to "Meredith". Or they can keep typing until they see the entry they are seeking. The real trick here, it seems to me, is data integrity in the ReferralType list. You need to guard against the duplicate entries "Child Protective Services", "CPS", "C.P.S.", "Child Protective Svcs.", and so forth. You may need to enter more information into the referral table than you think may be needed, and to check for duplication in the address or phone number fields, or an ID number, or probably some combination of fields in order to assure there is a single entry for Child Protective Services. A monthly review of the full list will help keep things in order. A few hundred choices won't be a problem, but alternate names or categories for the same entity could be. "MeredithS" wrote in message ... I understand what you're saying about the importance of the early design and setting relationships, which is why I haven't gone ahead and created the tables or the form until I understand the underpinnings. But, part of designing the database has to take into account its ultimate purpose, so I'm also thinking about that -- and I don't think cascading boxes will work because they require the user to know which category an item belongs to upfront. That still leaves me with the dilemma of how to make it easy on the user to put in/choose a referral source and also design the tables with an eye toward being able to query them intelligently later -- Thanks, Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith So, from an ease-of-use standpoint, a user could select CPS and never know what category and subcategory CPS belongs to. That makes sense. But what about the reverse situation, when the way to limit the possible "agencies" is driven by a choice of categories. One approach might be to have a pair of "cascading combo boxes", where the user picks a category ("Agency") first, which then limits the choices in a second combobox to only agencies (e.g., CPS, American Cancer Society, ...). With Access, to get the best use of the relationally-oriented features and functions, you really need to get the data nailed down first. After you have "entities" and "relationships" designed, then you can figure out how to use queries, forms, and reports to interact with the users. Good luck! Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... Thanks, Jeff -- I'm still thinking about this, but what I hear you suggesting is similar to what I'm wanting to do. It's logical and easy to do as you suggest, but what I'm uncertain of is how to 'replicate' this structure in an input/intake form. The intake person will hear a specific source name, e.g., Child Protective Services, and as you said, they don't need to know that CPS is in a particular category or sub-category. But, there are probably 200+ such specific sources, and it seems unwieldy to me to put them all into a drop-down box on the intake form... Is that what you're saying, or am I missing something? Many thanks for your help, Jeff, Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith Let me see if I can paraphrase your data (which seems to only be focused on the referral aspects at the moment): * You have Patients * Patients are Referred * A Patient Referral comes from a single Source (e.g., John Doe, Child Protective Services, ...) * A Source can be categorized (e.g., General, Agency, Legal, ...) * A Source Category can be sub-categorized (e.g., Friends, Internet, ...) If this is a fair paraphrasing, I'll suggest that you need tables along the lines of the "*"s above. Using a separate table for each referral source (type), and using (essentially) equivalent fields in each of those tables will cause both you and Access considerable headaches. Using separate "duplicate" table structures and embedding data in the table names is what you'd need to do if you were using a spreadsheet, but Access is a relational database. You won't get the best use of Access' features and functions if you try to feed it 'sheet data. Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... Thanks for your comments -- you're right; I didn't post the table descriptions very clearly. The goal is a form for Admissions in my hospital; they need to post the referral source amond other things at new patient intake, and I wanted to divide that into 3 large categories for simplicity and to avoid the intake person having to deal with a 200+ entry list. So, I set up: Tbl 1 General Referrals (approx 30; these are 'types' such as Family/Friends, Internet, etc.) Resource ID (category as in: Hospital, Legal, etc) All are Resource ID #1 Referral Source ID (unique) Referral Source Name Tbl 2 Agencies (approx. 50; these are specific entities such as Baptist Children's Home) Resource ID -- all are Resource ID #2 Referral Source ID Agency Name Tbl 3 Specific Resources (approx. 50; these are grouped by types as in 5 legal entities, 7 hospitals/ERs, 10 MHMRs, etc. -- mixed Resource ID #s) Resource ID Referral Source ID Specific Resource Name Tbl 4 Resource ID Table (this is intended to be the junction table, linking the others) Resource ID Resource Category Name If there's a better strategy than what I've thought up, please suggest it -- I appreciate your help. Meredith "Jeff Boyce" wrote: Meredith ?!Are you saying that you have tables named after your Resources? Like a Meredith table and a Jeff table and a William table? That sounds more like a spreadsheet than a well-normalized relational database. Before you proceed, take a look at "normalization" -- Access isn't a spreadsheet. Consider posting back with a description of your table structure more like: tblPerson PersonID FirstName LastName tblClub ClubID ClubName trelMembership PersonID ClubID DateOfMembership (this is just a made up example to show a way you can post your table structure via email.) Regards Jeff Boyce Microsoft Office/Access MVP "MeredithS" wrote in message ... 3 tables of referral sources and one 'join' table with an ID field common to all 3 (Resource ID). In Table 1, all items are Resource ID #1; in Table 2, all items are Resource ID #3; in Table 3, the items are all other Resource ID #s but ot #1 or #3. I've set the relationships to be: Table 4 (the Resource ID join table) has a one-to-many relationship with ??? all the tables or only Table 3. I'm trying to join them all in a query so I can group them into a form, basically in the 3 categories represented by the tables...This is probably unclear, but I'm unable to figure out what I'm doing wrong. I first thought that Table 4 related to Tables 1 and 2 as a one-to-one, but I can't seem to set that up in the Relationships window and now I'm very confused. I bet I'm totally off base here -- I've relied to date on trial-and-error in my relationship setting and reading about it isn't helping. Suggestion(s)? Many thanks -- Meredith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|