Table design question re duplicates fields

  • Thread starter Thread starter lmcc007
  • Start date Start date
I know what Outlook is, I just stopped using it (and switched to free
Thunderbird) a long time ago. It has the one big problem where it sends
attachments out as unreadable-by-many .dat files unless you use "plain text"
compose mode. I just meant that since I don't use it I don't know it's
screens etc.

- - - -

However, I'm assuming that, for a contact, Outlook has a handful of
standardized types of phone numbers, and thus a pre-defined heading for each
of them. If that is what you want and can live with, then you'd skip this
entire thread, and go back to a single table with a field for each phone
number type.

Under the structure that the respondents in this thread came up with, you
have no such predetermined structure / restructions. If one person has 15
phone numbers, many of non-standard types, their record would have 15. If
someone else had only one, their list would have only one.

One other possibility would be to automate it so that when you enter a new
person, it automatically loads a set of records in the phone number table for
the common types. So you'd have titles and blanks for the common phone
number types, plus the ability to add others. This would be a lot of work
and complexity to go though, resulting in what many would call bad data.

In my opinion, make the leap, and go with your #3, which is how it's
normally done when databasing things such as yours. It does not have the
restriction/problem that you describe....it lets you put an unlimited number
of phone numbers under each person, indluding repition of the types, if you
so choose.
 
Okay Fred,

<One other possibility would be to automate it so that when you enter a new
person, it automatically loads a set of records in the phone number table for
the common types. So you'd have titles and blanks for the common phone
number types, plus the ability to add others. This would be a lot of work
and complexity to go though, resulting in what many would call bad data. >

Yes, this sounds like what I am trying to do.

<In my opinion, make the leap, and go with your #3, which is how it's
normally done when databasing things such as yours. It does not have the
restriction/problem that you describe....it lets you put an unlimited number
of phone numbers under each person, indluding repition of the types, if you
so choose.>

If I do this, how do I make the form automatically display Business,
Business 2, Business Fax, and Mobile? You know, like you describe above:
"when you enter a new person, it automatically loads a set of records in the
phone number table for the common types. So you'd have titles and blanks
for the common phone
number types, plus the ability to add others."
 
Okay Fred,

<One other possibility would be to automate it so that when you enter a new
person, it automatically loads a set of records in the phone number table for
the common types. So you'd have titles and blanks for the common phone
number types, plus the ability to add others. This would be a lot of work
and complexity to go though, resulting in what many would call bad data. >

Yes, this sounds like what I am trying to do.

<In my opinion, make the leap, and go with your #3, which is how it's
normally done when databasing things such as yours. It does not have the
restriction/problem that you describe....it lets you put an unlimited number
of phone numbers under each person, indluding repition of the types, if you
so choose.>

If I do this, how do I make the form automatically display Business,
Business 2, Business Fax, and Mobile? You know, like you describe above:
"when you enter a new person, it automatically loads a set of records in the
phone number table for the common types. So you'd have titles and blanks
for the common phone
number types, plus the ability to add others."
 
Hi Fred,

I tried responding yesterday but for some reason whenever I come to this
site it takes forever or it freezes and I have to reload and try again and
when I try to post I normally get Sorry, Service is Temporarily Unavailable.
After I try a few times then I am to post. It's frustrating using this site.
I have Comcast cable internet svc--just can't believe how slow it is on this
site.

Anyway, yes I am going to go with #3

<In my opinion, make the leap, and go with your #3, which is how it's
normally done when databasing things such as yours. It does not have the
restriction/problem that you describe....it lets you put an unlimited number
of phone numbers under each person, indluding repition of the types, if you
so choose.>

I guess I will have to take the form the way it is instead of having
Business, Business 2, Business Fax, and Mobile as default PhoneTypes on the
form.
 
Hi Fred,

I tried responding yesterday but for some reason whenever I come to this
site it takes forever or it freezes and I have to reload and try again and
when I try to post I normally get Sorry, Service is Temporarily Unavailable.
After I try a few times then I am to post. It's frustrating using this site.
I have Comcast cable internet svc--just can't believe how slow it is on this
site.

Anyway, yes I am going to go with #3

<In my opinion, make the leap, and go with your #3, which is how it's
normally done when databasing things such as yours. It does not have the
restriction/problem that you describe....it lets you put an unlimited number
of phone numbers under each person, indluding repition of the types, if you
so choose.>

I guess I will have to take the form the way it is instead of having
Business, Business 2, Business Fax, and Mobile as default PhoneTypes on the
form.
 
Yea, this is the worst performing site I have ever seen. Since this
constitues 50% of their tech support, and via free help, you'd think they'd
at least do a decent job of making this site work. Maybe Microsoft needs to
switch this site to Linux servers. :-)
 
Yea, this is the worst performing site I have ever seen. Since this
constitues 50% of their tech support, and via free help, you'd think they'd
at least do a decent job of making this site work. Maybe Microsoft needs to
switch this site to Linux servers. :-)
 
Back
Top