Organizing Table

[Steve D]

Good Afternoon,
I have a very basic question regarding the organization of my table. I
will have monthly data that will be entered and it will be for various years.
Is it better to use one field called month and do a crosstab query or should
I have 12 fields (one for each month)? My thought is that it is cleaner if
each month has its own record but then I will have 12 times the number of
records. Thoughts? Best Practices?

 

[Jeff Boyce]

Steve

If you have one field for each month, you will have ... a spreadsheet!

If you are unfamiliar with the terms "normalization" and "relational
database design", plan to brush up on these BEFORE you design your table
structure. In fact, plan to brush up anyway ... you will need to evaluate
the responses you get here in light of their suitability to your specific
situation, considering relational database design.

Good luck!

Regards

Jeff Boyce
Microsoft Access MVP

--
Disclaimer: This author may have received products and services mentioned
in this post. Mention and/or description of a product or service herein
does not constitute endorsement thereof.

Any code or psuedocode included in this post is offered "as is", with no
guarantee as to suitability.

You can thank the FTC of the USA for making this disclaimer
possible/necessary.

 

[John W. Vinson]

Good Afternoon,
I have a very basic question regarding the organization of my table. I
will have monthly data that will be entered and it will be for various years.
Is it better to use one field called month and do a crosstab query or should
I have 12 fields (one for each month)? My thought is that it is cleaner if
each month has its own record but then I will have 12 times the number of
records. Thoughts? Best Practices?

Absolutely and unquestionably, one record per month. "Fields are expensive,
records are cheap"!

In fact, I would NOT use a "month" field, either monthname or month number;
instead use a Date/Time field. You must enter a complete date, but October
2009 data can be entered with a date field of #10/1/2009#, and so on; Access'
date handling is pretty good and this will let you slice and dice the data
chronologically with a lot of flexibility.

 

[Steve D]

I am ultimately going to want to use a crosstab query that will show multiple
years in the rows. Do you still suggest using date/time?

 

[Jeff Boyce]

Steve

In a query, Year([YourDateTimeField]) gives you a year. Now make a crosstab
query using that.

Regards

Jeff Boyce
Microsoft Access MVP

--
Disclaimer: This author may have received products and services mentioned
in this post. Mention and/or description of a product or service herein
does not constitute endorsement thereof.

Any code or psuedocode included in this post is offered "as is", with no
guarantee as to suitability.

You can thank the FTC of the USA for making this disclaimer
possible/necessary.

 

[John W. Vinson]

I am ultimately going to want to use a crosstab query that will show multiple
years in the rows. Do you still suggest using date/time?

Even more strongly, yes.

You can crosstab by year using Year([datefield]) as the Column Head - or by
year and month using Format([datefield], "yyyy-mm"), or by week using
DatePart([datefield], "ww"). Like I said, great flexibility!

 

[Steve D]

I get what you are saying but I would like to understand better how the
database works. Why is it better to use the full date and have many records
than to use one table with 12 months and one table with the years?
I felt like I needed the Year table. I am using the database to manage the
budget and forecast cycles, so I have a table called tblCycle and I wanted to
be able to relate that with a year so I would be able to pull the 2007
budget, etc.., but now I think I could just query using the month field or
Year([dtmMonth)].

Am I on the right path?
--
Thank You,
Steve

I am ultimately going to want to use a crosstab query that will show multiple
years in the rows. Do you still suggest using date/time?

Even more strongly, yes.

You can crosstab by year using Year([datefield]) as the Column Head - or by
year and month using Format([datefield], "yyyy-mm"), or by week using
DatePart([datefield], "ww"). Like I said, great flexibility!

 

[John W. Vinson]

I get what you are saying but I would like to understand better how the
database works. Why is it better to use the full date and have many records
than to use one table with 12 months and one table with the years?
I felt like I needed the Year table. I am using the database to manage the
budget and forecast cycles, so I have a table called tblCycle and I wanted to
be able to relate that with a year so I would be able to pull the 2007
budget, etc.., but now I think I could just query using the month field or
Year([dtmMonth)].

Am I on the right path?

Yes... but you need to keep going.

You seem to have a bias that you must have a separate table for everything.
You don't!

With proper indexing and proper query construction, you can *VERY EASILY* and
efficiently construct a query to extract any calendar year, or fiscal year, or
month, or any other time interval from your table, using just a Date/Time
field. You certainly do NOT need a table of months or a table of years to do
this.

 

[Jeff Boyce]

Steve

I'm with John on this...

Adding another field to handle another month means you'll always be
maintaining the application, updating the table structure, the queries, the
forms, the reports, etc.

Moreover, since Access is optimized for well-normalized data, if you try to
feed it 'sheet data, both you and Access will have to work overtime to come
up with (unnecessary) work-arounds.

I suspect that folks with experience using Excel before considering Access
have a BIGGER task coming up to speed, as they have to unlearn some of what
they've been doing if they want to make good/efficient/effective use of the
tool.

Best of luck!

Regards

Jeff Boyce
Microsoft Access MVP

--
Disclaimer: This author may have received products and services mentioned
in this post. Mention and/or description of a product or service herein
does not constitute endorsement thereof.

Any code or psuedocode included in this post is offered "as is", with no
guarantee as to suitability.

You can thank the FTC of the USA for making this disclaimer
possible/necessary.

I get what you are saying but I would like to understand better how the
database works. Why is it better to use the full date and have many
records
than to use one table with 12 months and one table with the years?
I felt like I needed the Year table. I am using the database to manage the
budget and forecast cycles, so I have a table called tblCycle and I wanted
to
be able to relate that with a year so I would be able to pull the 2007
budget, etc.., but now I think I could just query using the month field or
Year([dtmMonth)].

Am I on the right path?
--
Thank You,
Steve

I am ultimately going to want to use a crosstab query that will show
multiple
years in the rows. Do you still suggest using date/time?

Even more strongly, yes.

You can crosstab by year using Year([datefield]) as the Column Head - or
by
year and month using Format([datefield], "yyyy-mm"), or by week using
DatePart([datefield], "ww"). Like I said, great flexibility!

 

[Bernard Peek]

Absolutely and unquestionably, one record per month. "Fields are expensive,
records are cheap"!

In this particular case there's an argument for considering using
columns. The usual reason for preferring rows is that someone might
invent a new <foo> which would require a new column in a table. I
believe that it's unlikely that anyone is going to add a new month to
the calendar any time soon.

Having said that it's not unknown for company accounts to be split into
thirteen or sometimes more "months." An auditor of my acquaintance
wasn't surprised to find an extra month in a set of accounts. He was
surprised to find that we had given it a name, "Augustus."

 

[Steve D]

First of all...Thank you for all of your help.

Now more questions:
I am using the database to maintain the budget and forecast processes, each
of which has many versions. I created 3 tables, tblYear (2010, 2009,
2008...), tblCycle(Budget, 1qForecast, 2qForecast, Final...) and tblVersion
(10/1/2009 12:00 PM, 10/15/2009 12:30 PM). If I understand you correctly I
should have this as one table?


--
Thank You,
Steve

Steve

I'm with John on this...

Adding another field to handle another month means you'll always be
maintaining the application, updating the table structure, the queries, the
forms, the reports, etc.

Moreover, since Access is optimized for well-normalized data, if you try to
feed it 'sheet data, both you and Access will have to work overtime to come
up with (unnecessary) work-arounds.

I suspect that folks with experience using Excel before considering Access
have a BIGGER task coming up to speed, as they have to unlearn some of what
they've been doing if they want to make good/efficient/effective use of the
tool.

Best of luck!

Regards

Jeff Boyce
Microsoft Access MVP

--
Disclaimer: This author may have received products and services mentioned
in this post. Mention and/or description of a product or service herein
does not constitute endorsement thereof.

Any code or psuedocode included in this post is offered "as is", with no
guarantee as to suitability.

You can thank the FTC of the USA for making this disclaimer
possible/necessary.

I get what you are saying but I would like to understand better how the
database works. Why is it better to use the full date and have many
records
than to use one table with 12 months and one table with the years?
I felt like I needed the Year table. I am using the database to manage the
budget and forecast cycles, so I have a table called tblCycle and I wanted
to
be able to relate that with a year so I would be able to pull the 2007
budget, etc.., but now I think I could just query using the month field or
Year([dtmMonth)].

Am I on the right path?
--
Thank You,
Steve

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:07:01 -0700, Steve D
<[email protected]>
wrote:

I am ultimately going to want to use a crosstab query that will show
multiple
years in the rows. Do you still suggest using date/time?

Even more strongly, yes.

You can crosstab by year using Year([datefield]) as the Column Head - or
by
year and month using Format([datefield], "yyyy-mm"), or by week using
DatePart([datefield], "ww"). Like I said, great flexibility!

.

 

[Jeff Boyce]

Steve

I'm having trouble envisioning how 2010, 2009 and 2008 is a table? Can you
provide an example of what data you are storing in that table?

Regards

Jeff Boyce
Microsoft Access MVP

--
Disclaimer: This author may have received products and services mentioned
in this post. Mention and/or description of a product or service herein
does not constitute endorsement thereof.

Any code or psuedocode included in this post is offered "as is", with no
guarantee as to suitability.

You can thank the FTC of the USA for making this disclaimer
possible/necessary.

First of all...Thank you for all of your help.

Now more questions:
I am using the database to maintain the budget and forecast processes,
each
of which has many versions. I created 3 tables, tblYear (2010, 2009,
2008...), tblCycle(Budget, 1qForecast, 2qForecast, Final...) and
tblVersion
(10/1/2009 12:00 PM, 10/15/2009 12:30 PM). If I understand you correctly I
should have this as one table?


--
Thank You,
Steve

Steve

I'm with John on this...

Adding another field to handle another month means you'll always be
maintaining the application, updating the table structure, the queries,
the
forms, the reports, etc.

Moreover, since Access is optimized for well-normalized data, if you try
to
feed it 'sheet data, both you and Access will have to work overtime to
come
up with (unnecessary) work-arounds.

I suspect that folks with experience using Excel before considering
Access
have a BIGGER task coming up to speed, as they have to unlearn some of
what
they've been doing if they want to make good/efficient/effective use of
the
tool.

Best of luck!

Regards

Jeff Boyce
Microsoft Access MVP

--
Disclaimer: This author may have received products and services mentioned
in this post. Mention and/or description of a product or service herein
does not constitute endorsement thereof.

Any code or psuedocode included in this post is offered "as is", with no
guarantee as to suitability.

You can thank the FTC of the USA for making this disclaimer
possible/necessary.

I get what you are saying but I would like to understand better how the
database works. Why is it better to use the full date and have many
records
than to use one table with 12 months and one table with the years?
I felt like I needed the Year table. I am using the database to manage
the
budget and forecast cycles, so I have a table called tblCycle and I
wanted
to
be able to relate that with a year so I would be able to pull the 2007
budget, etc.., but now I think I could just query using the month field
or
Year([dtmMonth)].

Am I on the right path?
--
Thank You,
Steve


:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:07:01 -0700, Steve D
<[email protected]>
wrote:

I am ultimately going to want to use a crosstab query that will show
multiple
years in the rows. Do you still suggest using date/time?

Even more strongly, yes.

You can crosstab by year using Year([datefield]) as the Column Head -
or
by
year and month using Format([datefield], "yyyy-mm"), or by week using
DatePart([datefield], "ww"). Like I said, great flexibility!

.

 

[Steve D]

Jeff,

I have been using Hyperion Enterprise at work and from a user perspective it
looks to me that it has several individual tables that you choose from to
retrieve data (I'm sure the programming is much more sophisticated but I am
going with what I see) So each data value has a corresponding Period, Entity,
Frequency, Category, etc... So I am trying to re-create something that works
the same way for my call center volume planning model. Each of my values will
have a Year (2008, 2009...), Month (Jan, Feb, Mar...), Cycle (Budget, Q1
Fcst, Q2 Fcst...), Version (10/1/09, 10/15/09...) and Call Type (Billing,
General Info, Quality of Service...) at the end of the day I have one table
with multiple lookups that looks like:

Year, Month, Cycle, Version, Call Type, # of Calls
2009, Jan, Q3 Fcst, 10/1/09, Billing, 25000
2009, Feb, Q3 Fcst, 10/1/09, Billing, 24000
2009, Mar, Q3 Fcst, 10/1/09, Billing, 23000
2009, Jan, Q3 Fcst, 10/15/09, Billing, 26000
2009, Feb, Q3 Fcst, 10/15/09, Billing, 25000
2009, Mar, Q3 Fcst, 10/15/09, Billing, 24000
2009, Jan, Budget, 10/15/09, Billing, 26500
2009, Feb, Budget, 10/15/09, Billing, 25500
2009, Mar, Budget, 10/15/09, Billing, 24500

--
Thank You,
Steve

Steve

I'm having trouble envisioning how 2010, 2009 and 2008 is a table? Can you
provide an example of what data you are storing in that table?

Regards

Jeff Boyce
Microsoft Access MVP

--
Disclaimer: This author may have received products and services mentioned
in this post. Mention and/or description of a product or service herein
does not constitute endorsement thereof.

Any code or psuedocode included in this post is offered "as is", with no
guarantee as to suitability.

You can thank the FTC of the USA for making this disclaimer
possible/necessary.

First of all...Thank you for all of your help.

Now more questions:
I am using the database to maintain the budget and forecast processes,
each
of which has many versions. I created 3 tables, tblYear (2010, 2009,
2008...), tblCycle(Budget, 1qForecast, 2qForecast, Final...) and
tblVersion
(10/1/2009 12:00 PM, 10/15/2009 12:30 PM). If I understand you correctly I
should have this as one table?


--
Thank You,
Steve

Steve

I'm with John on this...

Adding another field to handle another month means you'll always be
maintaining the application, updating the table structure, the queries,
the
forms, the reports, etc.

Moreover, since Access is optimized for well-normalized data, if you try
to
feed it 'sheet data, both you and Access will have to work overtime to
come
up with (unnecessary) work-arounds.

I suspect that folks with experience using Excel before considering
Access
have a BIGGER task coming up to speed, as they have to unlearn some of
what
they've been doing if they want to make good/efficient/effective use of
the
tool.

Best of luck!

Regards

Jeff Boyce
Microsoft Access MVP

--
Disclaimer: This author may have received products and services mentioned
in this post. Mention and/or description of a product or service herein
does not constitute endorsement thereof.

Any code or psuedocode included in this post is offered "as is", with no
guarantee as to suitability.

You can thank the FTC of the USA for making this disclaimer
possible/necessary.

I get what you are saying but I would like to understand better how the
database works. Why is it better to use the full date and have many
records
than to use one table with 12 months and one table with the years?
I felt like I needed the Year table. I am using the database to manage
the
budget and forecast cycles, so I have a table called tblCycle and I
wanted
to
be able to relate that with a year so I would be able to pull the 2007
budget, etc.., but now I think I could just query using the month field
or
Year([dtmMonth)].

Am I on the right path?
--
Thank You,
Steve


:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:07:01 -0700, Steve D
<[email protected]>
wrote:

I am ultimately going to want to use a crosstab query that will show
multiple
years in the rows. Do you still suggest using date/time?

Even more strongly, yes.

You can crosstab by year using Year([datefield]) as the Column Head -
or
by
year and month using Format([datefield], "yyyy-mm"), or by week using
DatePart([datefield], "ww"). Like I said, great flexibility!
--

John W. Vinson [MVP]
.



.

.

 

[John W. Vinson]

I have been using Hyperion Enterprise at work and from a user perspective it
looks to me that it has several individual tables that you choose from to
retrieve data

Access is NOT a flawed implementation of Hyperion Enterprise.
Hyperion Enterprise is likewise NOT a flawed implementation of Access.

Trying to apply the logic and design conventions of one software package to
another will be an exercise in frustration! If you're going to use Access, I'd
really recommend that you use it on its own terms, as it's designed to be
used. This would NOT include creating a new table every year, or every
quarter.

The table you post looks like one piece of a reasonable structure, but if
you're still thinking of "a 2008 table" or a "February table" you're on the
wrong track.

 

[Steve D]

My intention was never to build a seperate table for each year, just a table
that contained all of the years (tblYear), and one that contained all of the
months (tblMonth - 12 records - no more, no less). The table I showed as an
example would reference all of those individual tables so if I needed to
change a version name or add a year I would do it in the respective tables,
tblVersion or tblYear, and the changes would be made globally. Sorry if that
wasn't clear.