Susan Harkins
ssharkins at gmail.com
Wed Dec 24 13:34:04 CST 2014
Arthur, it's about balance for me. The db I'm (still) working on for Salato has one purpose -- to track intake, outtake, and anything else she decides she wants to track, but the function remains the same -- the animals. It's not like she's going to say can you add building maintenance to the db? :) I know that happens. :) Susan H. On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Arthur Fuller <fuller.artful at gmail.com> 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 > > > > > > -- > Arthur > -- > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >