[AccessD] Normalization discussion

I'd say 
Don't worry about normalisation -
Just consider the use of the data  and group it as appropriate 
Primary table would, I presume be the animal's id code as registered with the
worldwide (or if appropriate local) registration authority.

>From there it's split the data into sets that fit your mental comprehension,
having multiple tables as needed where there may be commonality in animals, or
where the entries apply to a specific set - as in registration details with an
appropriate authority  where perhaps 10% of them are associated with that
authority, and where a different registration authority wants a substantially
different set of data

Then allow for animals to leave, and return, maybe remaining under your
registration, and maybe getting a different id while they were away and when
they come back
 
Basically adjust the structure from strict normalisation to fit the forms and
reports that Access will setup for you. 

JimB


-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of James Button
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 2:21 PM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Normalization discussion

That does assume that, if the FK is to point to a unique PK, then the child rows
are ONLY associated with a single row of the Parent.

As I've found out that is not always the case!
As in with animals there is genus and specific breed, as well as just locale or
sexual differentiation 

JimB

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Susan Harkins
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 2:07 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: [AccessD] Normalization discussion

I'll spend the morning rereading the book Martin and I wrote, brushing up
on the normalization part. I've forgotten a lot of the basics. I'm writing
an animal tracing database in Access and I'm trying to remember if it
matters where the fk goes. Now, I remember its purpose and all that, but it
would be so much simpler if I could just drop them all into the main table
instead of adding a fk to all the child tables to the main table -- I think
anyway.

So, I've got a main table of animals and all of the remaining tables are
child tables of a sort and a few lookup tables. Is it reasonable to just
add a fk to all those child tables in my parent table?

I just don't remember. I haven't built a database in... seriously... 10
years? It's been long enough that I'm really struggling.

Susan H.
-- 
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