By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,510 Members | 1,497 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,510 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Update 1999 db - it has NO relationships

P: n/a
I have been asked to Update an old 1999 db - it has NO relationships to
speak of.

Many of the tables are based on Quiries. I am being asked to add about 50
new fields.

Is it better to start again from scratch ?
--
Dave Allison
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
I don't understand what you mean by "tables based on queries"? Could you
clarify? Many queries are based on tables, but the other is just not
possible.

As to starting again from scratch, that would be a personal call -- it is
unlikely that you could provided enough information for us to make that call
for you; certainly, your question didn't begin to give anywhere nearly
enough.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

"David Allison" <da***********@zzzzzzzzzblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l4***********@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
I have been asked to Update an old 1999 db - it has NO relationships to
speak of.

Many of the tables are based on Quiries. I am being asked to add about 50
new fields.

Is it better to start again from scratch ?
--
Dave Allison

Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
TC

David Allison <da***********@zzzzzzzzzblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l4***********@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...

I have been asked to Update an old 1999 db - it has NO relationships to speak of.

Then it is probably poorly designed and/or coded.

Many of the tables are based on Quiries.
Tables are not based on queries. Queries are based on tables.

I am being asked to add about 50 new fields.
Be sure to read this article first:
http://support.microsoft.com/support...es/Q100139.ASP

Is it better to start again from scratch ?
What do you mean by "better" in this context? If you are an expert database
designer & coder, presented with a badly designed & written database, it is
usually best to throw it away & start again; because you'll be able to re-do
it properly, in less time that it would have taken to clean up the original
mess. But if you are *not* experienced, then you will have to take some time
to learn how to do things, regardless of whether you start again, or
continue with the current database.

One way or the other, you *WILL* take a backup of the current database,
won't you? :-)

HTH,
TC

--
Dave Allison

Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
Thanks ~

--
Dave Allison
"TC" <a@b.c.d> wrote in message news:1067065265.814569@teuthos...

David Allison <da***********@zzzzzzzzzblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:l4***********@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...

I have been asked to Update an old 1999 db - it has NO relationships to speak of.

Then it is probably poorly designed and/or coded.

Many of the tables are based on Quiries.


Tables are not based on queries. Queries are based on tables.

I am being asked to add about 50 new fields.


Be sure to read this article first:
http://support.microsoft.com/support...es/Q100139.ASP

Is it better to start again from scratch ?


What do you mean by "better" in this context? If you are an expert

database designer & coder, presented with a badly designed & written database, it is usually best to throw it away & start again; because you'll be able to re-do it properly, in less time that it would have taken to clean up the original mess. But if you are *not* experienced, then you will have to take some time to learn how to do things, regardless of whether you start again, or
continue with the current database.

One way or the other, you *WILL* take a backup of the current database,
won't you? :-)

HTH,
TC

--
Dave Allison


Nov 12 '05 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.