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 I’ll use the same routine as when
I found him the first time. I assume what Tom was trying to do, and what I’m
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
Tom’s 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 I’ll loose track of what’s gong on. But, it could
prove to be interesting.