Tina Norris Fields
tinanfields at torchlake.com
Wed Dec 24 12:19:20 CST 2014
Hi Arthur, Yes, I see 3NF as a minimum, which is why I brought my question to this gang. I knew there were people here who could push me in the right direction. TNF Tina Norris Fields tinanfields-at-torchlake-dot-com 231-322-2787 On 12/24/2014 12:59 PM, Arthur Fuller wrote: > There's no such thing as a simple app. I have made that mistake more times > than I can count. And I know that some of you, perhaps most, are happy with > 3NF but I am not. I almost always go to BCNF or 5NF. > > Merry Christmas and/or happy holidays to everyone on this list. > > Arthur > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Susan Harkins <ssharkins at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I completely agree. I had to pull up the animal db to see what I ended up >> doing. I have an institution table and a contact table. >> >> Susan H. >> >> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Charlotte Foust < >> charlotte.foust at gmail.com >>> wrote: >>> Susan, >>> >>> I recognize your situation and understand. Just know that the simple >> apps >>> have a way of sticking around forever and user appetites for new reports >>> and features usually leads to a need for normalization. For me it's >>> easier to just design that way from the start. I'm lazy! >>> >>> Charlotte >>> On Dec 24, 2014 5:28 AM, "Susan Harkins" <ssharkins at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Charlotte, this makes perfect sense, but it isn't the way I would >>> approach >>>> it for a db I might be working on, but then, mine would be small and >>>> specific. I know some of you use Access to create dbs with a much >> broader >>>> scope and that definitely impacts your design. I think perhaps the >>> smaller >>>> the project, the more freedom you have -- I might be wrong. :) >>>> >>>> It's kind of interesting because I downloaded a few knitting patterns >>> this >>>> morning and it hit me that designing a database is really a very >> creative >>>> endeavor. You have a pattern, you have stitches that you know and have >>> used >>>> for years -- but still, we all seem to bring our own personal process >> to >>>> the project. :) Another knitter can observe and with a minimal amount >> of >>>> explanation from you, they might say, "That's not how I would've done >> it, >>>> but that's nice!" :) >>>> >>>> When I stopped working in and writing about Access, I don't think I >>>> realized how hard it would be to reclaim the skill. It's like riding a >>> bike >>>> right? Um... not for me. And speaking of... I tried riding a bike with >> my >>>> granddaughter a few years back. That wasn't so easy either. :) >>>> >>>> Susan H. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Charlotte Foust < >>>> charlotte.foust at gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The donation table contains donation, amount, date, donorID, perhaps >>> type >>>>> of donation (i.e. pledge, lump sum, in kind, etc.). You have a >> persons >>>>> table that includes a field for companyID because you probably want >> to >>>>> address any thank yous to that person's attention at their company, >> if >>>>> any. The Company table is just that, companies. It may have >> multiple >>>>> addresses so those are linked to the persons table. If you put >>> contacts >>>>> into the company table, you will either wind up overwriting the >>> contacts >>>>> for future donations, or you'll have duplicates of the company for >>>>> different contacts. The persons and companies table have addresses >> in >>> an >>>>> Address table whose PK is inserted as an FK in the appropriate table. >>>> Does >>>>> that seem any clearer? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Charlotte >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Susan Harkins <ssharkins at gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> A donor can be an individual or an organization -- they're all >>> donors. >>>>>> Donor is the entity, the name and type of donor all belong to >> donor. >>>>> Right? >>>>>> Susan H. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Charlotte Foust < >>>>>> charlotte.foust at gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Not without denormalizing the table. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Charlotte >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Susan Harkins < >>> ssharkins at gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is there anyway to have orgs and individuals in the same table? >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >> -- >> AccessD mailing list >> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >> > >