Re: Relationship/Normalizing
- From: "Chris2" <rainofsteel.NOTVALID@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:21:00 -0700
"cableguy47905 via AccessMonster.com" <u4349@uwe> wrote in message
news:73bef0c6f5376@xxxxxx
Thanks again Chris, I am learning so much and didn't realize Ididn't have
much of a grasp on this at all.another
I wanted to define my relationships a little better. Because I have
question.Unique to
1. Each Company can have multiple contracts, but the contracts are
just those Companies.Unique to
2. Each Contract can have multiple Locations, These locations are
the Company.
3. Those locations are unique to each Company.
That wasn't a rule I realized, specifically.
3 (C3)
Therefore
Company A (ComA) can have Contract 1 (C1), Contract 2 (C2), Contract
There are Locations (L1), (L2), (L3) that are all specific to theCompany,
not the contract.
That's a major departure from what I knew previously.
If locations are specific to companies, and not contracts, then things
would be organized differently.
Except, I'm not sure exactly what new rule is, as the example below
still has contracts having locations.
Company B (ComB) can have (CB1), (CB2) and has no locations.
Wow!
correct.
This is correct:
Company Contract Location
ComA C1 L1
ComA C1 L2
ComA C1 L3
ComA C2
ComA C2
ComA C2
ComB CB1
ComB CB2
However,
It is allowing me to have L1, L2, L3 with CB1 or CB2. This is not
C2 can have L1,L2,L3, but may not always have this. I am confusedabout this
relationship.
Can you help with this one?
Umm . . . think . . . think . . . think . . . <Jeopardy theme music />
.. . .
Companies have contracts.
Companies may have locations.
Locations may be associated with only one Company.
Contracts may have locations.
Contracts may have many locations.
Contracts may be associated with only one Company.
Before I go ahead and start the table designing route, why don't you
look over the list of rules above and add, delete, or edit as
necessary.
Sincerely,
Chris O.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Relationship/Normalizing
- From: cableguy47905 via AccessMonster.com
- Re: Relationship/Normalizing
- References:
- Relationship/Normalizing
- From: cableguy47905 via AccessMonster.com
- Re: Relationship/Normalizing
- From: Allen Browne
- Re: Relationship/Normalizing
- From: cableguy47905 via AccessMonster.com
- Re: Relationship/Normalizing
- From: Chris2
- Re: Relationship/Normalizing
- From: cableguy47905 via AccessMonster.com
- Re: Relationship/Normalizing
- From: Chris2
- Re: Relationship/Normalizing
- From: Chris2
- Re: Relationship/Normalizing
- From: cableguy47905 via AccessMonster.com
- Re: Relationship/Normalizing
- From: cableguy47905 via AccessMonster.com
- Relationship/Normalizing
- Prev by Date: Re: Redesign of an old Access Database with Linked Tables
- Next by Date: HELP, HELP!!! CONVERT A DATA STRUCTURE IN C# TO A ACCESS DATABASE
- Previous by thread: Re: Relationship/Normalizing
- Next by thread: Re: Relationship/Normalizing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|