Charlotte Foust
charlotte.foust at gmail.com
Wed Dec 24 11:28:01 CST 2014
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 >