By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
446,145 Members | 1,669 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 446,145 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Help converting flat table to relational.......

P: n/a
Hello:

Thanks for reading this post.

I have (had) a relatively small table of about 12 fields that has now
bloomed into a monster of 38 fields and could get bigger.

It's way past time to convert this thing into a set of relational
tables, but I don't know how. My first 2 databases I designed correctly
from the start, but I messed up on this one.

Can I fix it now, or is it too late. I have all the usual stuff:
forms, views, and reports built from this table. If I change the table
now, will it screw up all the other work or will the views I built still
look the same to the froms and reports?

I'm using A2002 as a front end to SQL Server 7.0 on Windows 2000.

Thanks for any advise.

Richard Hollingsworth

Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
DFS
"Richard Holliingsworth" <wi*******************@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:Ht********@news.boeing.com...
Hello:

Thanks for reading this post.

I have (had) a relatively small table of about 12 fields that has now
bloomed into a monster of 38 fields and could get bigger.

It's way past time to convert this thing into a set of relational
tables, but I don't know how. My first 2 databases I designed correctly
from the start, but I messed up on this one.

Can I fix it now, or is it too late. I have all the usual stuff:
forms, views, and reports built from this table. If I change the table
now, will it screw up all the other work or will the views I built still
look the same to the froms and reports?
If you normalize the data in the flat file by splitting it up into several
related tables, as you should, it will very probably screw up all the other
work. Depending on the complexity of the 38 field file, you might have a
lot or a little work ahead of you to reconfigure your presentation objects
to match the data.

If you post the 38 field names, maybe I / cdma can suggest a proper db
structure.

Before redoing a lot of forms and reports, consider the size of this
database, number of users, how much work you have in it already, how long
the system will be in use, etc. It may not be worth the time.

I'm using A2002 as a front end to SQL Server 7.0 on Windows 2000.

Thanks for any advise.

Richard Hollingsworth

Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
fp
Since you don't mention anything specific about your project here I would
suggest doing a search on google for 'third normal form'

If you care to repost with some specifics here, go ahead. The tables and
fields that you have would be helpful.

You can find a lot of information on this newsgroup about db design and
there are a number of really helpful websites by contributing members. A
little investigation will reveal those sites.

--
******************************
Fred Parker
Lynn Consulting Group, L.L.C.
http://www.lynnconsultinggroup.com
******************************
Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:08:53 GMT, Richard Holliingsworth
<wi*******************@boeing.com> wrote:
Can I fix it now, or is it too late.
It's never too late. It just depends on how much time, money, and
hours you can invest in fixing it.
I have all the usual stuff:
forms, views, and reports built from this table. If I change the table
now, will it screw up all the other work or will the views I built still
look the same to the froms and reports?


If you can build a query (a view) from the new tables identical to the
old table, and you give that view the same name as the old table, the
reports should still work. ("Should", because I've seen developers
make careless, unwarranted assumptions about whether they were looking
at a base table or a view.)

The forms should still work for displaying data, but might not work
for inserting and updating data.

--
Mike Sherrill
Information Management Systems
Nov 12 '05 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.