Crystal, how about I upload a zipped copy of the back end ? It is not populated except with a few fictitious test patients.
Regarding normalization suggestions, I will be looking at that today. However, Normalization with respect to redundant data, there are only a few instances, perhaps 5, that I can identify redundant data situations.
Terence
--- In MS_Access_Professionals@yahoogroups.com, "Terence" <buffalome90210@...> wrote:
>
> Crystal , I uploaded a quick Diagram/schematic of the relational tables. I think its simply called Doc2... word document
>
> I will upload a more detailed one shortly. This diagram simply demonstrates the number of tables and relationships. Most of the fields in the various tables are numeric, Yes/No, with (unfortunately) an attachment field here and there. I wanted to give you a flavor for it in the immediate.
> terence
>
> --- In MS_Access_Professionals@yahoogroups.com, Crystal <strive4peace2008@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Terence,
> >
> > make a PowerPoint presentation (or Word doc) with screen shots of your relationship diagram laid out according to the guidelines in the Relationships chapter of Access Basics and post them. I would like to see your structure.
> >
> > Access Basics by Crystal (Bill Mosca's site)
> > http://thatlldoit.com
> >
> > Warm Regards,
> > Crystal
> >
> > *
> > (: have an awesome day :)
> > *
> >
> >
> > --- On Sat, 8/27/11, Terence wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I have been working on a DB which
> > > started out small and grew LOL. It is a medical/statistical
> > > DB, and the General format was an Information Table
> > > (Patients name, address, etc), An Office_Visit Table,
> > > consisting of measurements taken during that visit. Very
> > > Straight forward.
> > >
> > > Then it turned out that the measurements taken during each
> > > office visit were derived from tests which required either
> > > specific calculations or questioners. So what I did was to
> > > create a popup form for each test or questioners. These
> > > detailed elements of information were then stored in a
> > > separate table linked to the office visit.
> > >
> > > Well I now have over 40 potential tables per office visit
> > > and counting.
> > >
> > > In discussions with John V. (Which you can follow on our
> > > forum). John suggested that I consider making each test a
> > > ROW of the Visit table, thus reducing the number of table
> > > significantly.
> > >
> > > Now be aware, these probably only 50 % of these test are
> > > actually performed during a visit.
> > >
> > > John seemed to be uncomfortable with the large number of
> > > tables, and seemed especially concerned about DB size.
> > >
> > > I am looking for comments suggestions, and any case
> > > experience from other member with a similar situation. I
> > > wrestle with LOTS of tables, BIG DEAL, "thats what a DB is
> > > for". Or should I take a more conservative approach and make
> > > the various test data as rows to the Visit ?
> > >
> > > Pit Falls ? Pros Cons ?
> > > terence
> > > TY in advance.
> > >
> >
>
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar