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
|
|||
|
|||
How do I normalize this?
Hello,
I guess the question is, what is the best way to organize this data. I inherited this database years ago and have been afraid to change how things have always been done: 1. Last years table is renamed table Previous Year (the table named table Previous Year is renamed table year) 2. A copy of last years data is then gone over with a fine tooth comb in the current year table and unecessary records are deleted This database is used (very effectively but not very effeciently ) as a vessel for mail merge. Previous years need to be kept for legal purposes. Any ideas? Thanks, nick |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How do I normalize this?
Nick,
This has to start with you making a detailed decision of what information you want to store. "Information" isn't information unless it answers a question / serves a purpose. The "information" contained in those old tables includes: 1. (existence of a record indicates) whether or not they were "on the list" that year. 2. The person's data as of (the end of) that year. For example, the 2006 list might have Joe's address where he lived in 2006 before he moved. If the "#2" "Information" really is information that is useful or required, then your current plan is a pretty good one and is probably normalized. I say "probably" because if you have data on individuals which which either spans years or NEVER changes, full normalization would dictate separating that. Even if #2 needs to be retained, here's another idea. Just add a field for each year, and put a "Y" in that field if th record is on the list that year. (this does not meet, but in my opinion is better than 100% normalization). And just update the information on an ongoing basis. Then just save copies copies of the entire database. Might "waste" 2 cents worth of hard drive space and save you 1000 times that in time. This also works if #2 is not required, with less need for the copies. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How do I normalize this?
When you need to add a table just due to the passing of time (i.e. a
table for each year), then your database isn't normalized. It makes forms and reports more complex, and also makes querying multiple-year data more difficult (requiring Union queries and design changes each year). As Fred suggests, adding a Year column to the table is a reasonable first step. Armen Stein Microsoft Access MVP www.JStreetTech.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|