Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 70
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25

    Can someone have a look at this (simple) design ?

    http://users.pandora.be/gisaalter/tweakers/knipsel2.jpg

    Hi, first of all, I'm new to this forum. I came accross this site in order for some feedback on a design I have made.
    The purpose of this design is to keep track of real-esate developments.
    I hope the descriptions of the tables are straightforward.

    An officer (Officer) is assigned to an area (Area) . In this area, several sites (Site) can be developped. Several types (Type) of buildings can be developed, by several contracters (Builder). Architects (Architect) are assigned to the builders.

    That's about it. Thanks for all your feedback, hopefully with your help I can improve the design...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Probably you need to decide whether a builder is assigned to a site or a building. Ditto for architects being assigned to builders or buildings. You need to apply all your relationships.

    Can you really phone an area? Who answers it?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by pootle flump
    Probably you need to decide whether a builder is assigned to a site or a building. Ditto for architects being assigned to builders or buildings. You need to apply all your relationships.

    Can you really phone an area? Who answers it?
    Architects are chosen by the builders, independent of the 'area' in which they are. The builders are assigned to the buildings, cause you can have several builders working on the same site, on different types of buildings...
    I will have a look how I can optimize it as such, can you give me a clue ?

    Good point on the phone, will handle that..
    Thx

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Ok - so if that is true - why have a builder id in the site table? It is not only redundant it does not represent the relationship. Ditto again for architects although I'm not so clear on your response there.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by pootle flump
    Ok - so if that is true - why have a builder id in the site table? It is not only redundant it does not represent the relationship. Ditto again for architects although I'm not so clear on your response there.
    pootle flump, indeed the builder_ID is empty in the Site table, it can be removed.
    The architects have a relationship with the builders (cause they are assigned by the builders) AND to the buildings (cause they design it). So if I understand you correct, I should add an extra relationship architects <-> builders AND to keep the exisiting architects <-> buidings relationship ?Idem ditto for the builders <-> site + builders <-> buildings ?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    If you know the builder of a building does it follow then that you will always know the architect too (irrespective of the architect column in the building table)?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by pootle flump
    If you know the builder of a building does it follow then that you will always know the architect too (irrespective of the architect column in the building table)?
    Yes, each of the builders have 2 architects assigned, which they can choose from.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    So - a builder has up to 2 architects and each building a builder works on will have one of those two architects assigned to it. Correct?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by pootle flump
    So - a builder has up to 2 architects and each building a builder works on will have one of those two architects assigned to it. Correct?
    Yes, that's correct

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Kewel.

    In that case your design just doesn't cut it. So - based on that info - what changes do you think need making? (I'm counting around 4 - quick tot up - not definitive).

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25
    I will try do to the following:

    Make an extra table Builder_Architect with ArchitectID & BuilderID. That way I assign the architects to the Builders.
    Next, I'll add the AreaID to the Buildings, cause they have a relationship to.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Super. Change and post and let's see where we are up to.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by pootle flump
    Super. Change and post and let's see where we are up to.
    Ok, I'm onto it. I'll run some queries on the new design and see if I can find any other deficiencies. Thanks, you are of great help !

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    25
    Ok, I've made a new design. It's available over here:

    http://users.pandora.be/gisaalter/tweakers/knipsel3.jpg

    I hope I have understood your remarks.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Very well done. You've obviously looked up many-to-many relationships

    Only two questions:
    How do you decide which of the builders' architects are assigned to a buildings record?

    This is an interesting one:
    a builder has up to 2 architects
    Can you think of a way in Access to model this cardinality requirement?

    EDIT - you are using Access right - I think I just assumed....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •