[AccessD] 2 quick questions

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Note: This e-mail is subject to the disclaimer contained at the bottom of this message.
_______________________________________________________________________________________



For this sort of thing I would usually add a StartDate and EndDate fields to the table.  That way you can always pull the correct part based on the date it was ordered / used / whatever.  And to add to the key discussion.  If you are using the Part No as the PK you can now dual key it by Part Number and EndDate.



 

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of newsgrps
Sent: Friday, 3 June 2011 8:32 AM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] 2 quick questions

I will chip in because I have a client that is wanting to be able to 
archive data on stock specifications that change.

For those wider tables (ie those with lots of fields) an alternative 
I have heard of is to have an "Archive" table with fields for 
ChangeDate, FieldName, OldValue.  Then only changed fields need to be 
stored.  The big problem I see with this is that for queries you 
would need to run a function for every field to get the relevant data.

This might be better for mid sized tables with not to few, not to 
many fields but still seems a clumsy way of doing things.

How does SQL do its transaction rollback thingy?

David Emerson
Dalyn Software Ltd
New Zealand

At 3/06/2011, Arthur Fuller wrote:
>You got that part right. Agree 100%. It can become difficult, as in a couple
>of dbs I have built in which 500+ tables were involved. I made no claim that
>my solution was perfect. I just had to deal with a specific problem
>regarding a specific period in time, and that's what I came up with. Anyone
>with a better solution is most welcome to contribute to this thread. I am
>always eager to learn from the experts on this forum.
>
>A.
>
>On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:31 PM, jwcolby <jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> > I like the concept of PITA.  The implementation could range from works fine
> > to massive database bloat.  I think for narrow tables that change
> > occasionally it would work great.  For wide tables that change a lot it
> > would be problematic.
> >
> >
> > John W. Colby
> > www.ColbyConsulting.com
> >
> >
> >
>--
>AccessD mailing list
>AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
>http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
>Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com

-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
_______________________________________________________________________________________

The information transmitted in this message and its attachments (if any) is intended 
only for the person or entity to which it is addressed.
The message may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, 
retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance 
upon this information, by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.

If you have received this in error, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail 
and associated material from any computer.

The intended recipient of this e-mail may only use, reproduce, disclose or distribute 
the information contained in this e-mail and any attached files, with the permission 
of the sender.

This message has been scanned for viruses.
_______________________________________________________________________________________