MKDunaway,
There is a limit to the value of normalization. With the names of people
the trade-off between reducing redundant data to save space versus ease of
reporting (IMHO) leans toward just keeping first & last names in the same
table. As for how to write a query, the Query By Example view of
things--what most people interpret as the design view of a query--is just a
graphical means of describing to Access what you want so Access can
translate it into an SQL statement. For the purpose of presenting data in a
useful form there is one primary SQL statement--the SELECT statement. So
your choices for creating a query are either work with the QBE grid--not bad
and most of the time enough--or write your own SQL statements. In my
previous post I gave an example of a SELECT statement.
You stated in one of your posts that you gave us an example of what you
wanted to do. Cool, but it helps if in your example you are clear enough
that we know how to answer you. Now, I'll hazard a guess that you are
trying to puzzle out many-to-many relationships. These are typically built
with three tables, the two related tables and a third table that just lists
the records in the other two tables that are related. To use your example,
there would be a first name table, a last name table, and a third table I'll
call names. So, FirstName would have at least two columns, FNAME_ID and
FNAME. Ditto LastName. Names would have two columns both numbered, called
FNAME_ID, and LNAME_ID which would list the first names and last names that
go together. Opening and viewing Names wouldn't be useful because it would
only be a two column list of numbers. But using a query we could join the
three tables and present the matching first and last names from FirstName
and LastName where they have matching id's in Names. That's it in a
nutshell. Let me know if you need more help with this.
--
Alan Webb
knoNOgeek@SPAMhotmail.com
"It's not IT, it's IS"
<mkdunaway3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:CxM8e.8807$sp3.603@newsread3.news.atl.earthli nk.net...[color=blue]
> Thanks for responding Alan.
> I'm not certain if I understood your reply correctly, but if I did I think
> there's a bit of confusion. If I didn't there's a bit of confusion too.
>
> First, why separate the data into tables - lots of people to keep track
> of, I'm just trying to save the space of multiple names.
>
> Second: "show me all the rows in these tables where
> the person id is the same."
>
> The Per. Name & Stat. is the only table with a Person ID# field.
> All of the other tables consist of just 2 fields, the data (names) and an
> autonumber Primary key.
>
> Perhaps I was not clear in describing that earlier. Surely I don't have
> to put a Person ID field in each of the other tables, do I? One field
> wouldn't be enough because it's a one to many relationship (Name to Person
> IDs).
>
> -----
>
> pietlinden, thank you too for responding. I think I can guess at the
> reasoning behind your question. If you are wondering if this is all that
> I am going to do with the mdb, then you would be right to think that I am
> making it too difficult for no reason. However, this is only an example
> of a problem that will occur every time I add another function to what
> will be a major database. I intend it to track members, contacts, last
> contact, by who, classes, attendance, addresses, skills, relations,
> financial records, etc. All to be accessed by many different users with
> varying levels of access.
> Too ambitious for a beginner? Yeah. But I used to do this stuff, it's
> just been 5 or 6 years since I even looked at it and I've forgotten how to
> do basic SQL. Given a week or two however, and I'll be back up to speed.[/color]