Hi,
I am using MS-SQL server to store my database.
My problem is that I have around 150+ database files in DBF format.
Each database file consists of fields ranging from 2 to 33 in number.
Also, there are some fields which have just one entry and rest are
NULL.
This database will be accessed by a printing software.
Please advice as to how I should proceed to normalize this database.
Regards,
Shwetabh
Is it worth it for performance purposes to create additional fields in table so that when a database query is made two tables don't need to be joined?
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi all,
This is actually a pretty stupid question, but somehow I need an answer from you experts.
We are currently building a web application using ASP.NET, and it simply manages contact information, like outlook. Contact information include first name, last name, birthday, etc. It also tracks address, phone number, and email. Here come the problem.
We allow only one address, 4 phone numbers and an email for each contact. When we building the database table, should we create 6 fields to contain all the information or should we create address, phone, and email table and then create the relationship between them.
Will the first method speed up the performance? Or the second method is the proper way?
I need some pros and cons on each
Thanks so much for your opinion
Sam
Hi,
I'm designing a database to represent items in a restaurant menu. An item has the following information associated with it.
Item-
Name, Price, Catagory, Ingredients(many), and Options(many)
Ingredients-
Name, and Price
Catagory-
Name
Options-
Name and Price.
This is how I have it set up so far.
-------------------------------------
Table Item
-ItemID as Primary Key
-Name
-Price
-------------------------------------
Table Ingredients
-IngID as Primary Key
-Name
-ItemID as relationship to Table Item
-------------------------------------
Table Catagory
-CatID as Primary key
-Name
-Item ID as relationship to Table Item
-------------------------------------
Table Options
-OptionID as Primary key
-Name
-ItemID as relationship to Table Item
-Price
I would like to know if i'm normalizing correctly. Much Thanks.
Dan
I have decided to use Wufoo online forms so collect evaluation data from my clients. Each form will have different type of data.
For example
Form 1 might have:
Client id, name, user id, comments
Form 2 might have:
Client id, name, user id, address, comments, telephone number
Form 3 might have:
Client id, name, user id, comments, date of birth, email address
Each form can have over 20+ data types which can be all different to other forms.My question is: What is the best way to store all the data into sql server without creating new columns of new data types everytime a new form is created in wufoo.
Normalization Question - Please bear with me, hopefully things will beclear at the end of the question.Given a treaty table containg treaties; Treaty1, Treaty2 etc and abenefit table; Benefit1, Benefit2 etc. A treaty can only have certainbenefits:-For example Treaty 1 can process Benefit1 and Benefit2.To maintain this relationship a new table TreatyBenefit has beencreated: -Treaty1Benefit1Treaty1Benefit2A further table called policy has been added. A treaty can have manypoliciesTreaty1Policy1Treaty1 Policy2A Policy can contain 1 or more benefitsPolicy1 Benefit1Policy1 Benefit2 etc.Giving structure as follows:-T - TB - B|PGiven the above, should there be a constraint between policy andTreatyBenefit or Policy and Benefit to enforce referential integrity.If so which constraint, if not what form of constraint / checkingshould I be using, to ensure that a Policy will contain the correctbenefits.ThanksAdrian
View 7 Replies View RelatedHi all,
I am still confuse in normalization. (1st, 2nd, 3rd, and more.)
Any body have a detail idea abt that ???
Pls explain with example.
Thxs.
Regards,
Shailesh Patel
Is it possible to normalize a database using SQL statement? I have a huge duplicated records on a certain fields and need to do some normalization on it. For example, the raw data below
Field_A Field_B Field_C Field_D Field_E
1 0001 00/05/11 14.00 Start
1 0001 00/05/11 15.00
1 0001 00/05/11 16.00 End
1 0002 00/05/11 16.10 Start
1 0002 00/05/11 17.50
1 0002 00/05/11 17.10 End
should be normalized to
Field_A Field_B Field_C Duration(End-Start)
1 0001 00/05/11 16.00-14.00=2.00
1 0002 00/05/11 17.10-16.10=2.00
How can I do it using a SQL Query?
Andy
Hi all,
Does anyone know of a good resource or tutorial that teaches you the basics of the 3 normal forms?
Muchos Gracias
I'm working on a normalization for one of my classes and I've been sick and I feel lost now, could one of you please look at my database statements and tell me if/what is wrong with it?
FIRE_REPORT(FireID,Alarms,Address,FiremanID,FiremanName,FiremanPhone,FiremanHomeStation,StationAddress,StationPhone,TruckID,License,TruckHomeStation)
I came up with..
TruckID->License,TruckHome
FireID->Alarms,Address
FiremanID->FiremanName,FiremanPhone,FiremanHomeStaion,StationAddress,StationPhone
Which lead to...
FIRE(FireID,Alarms,Address)
FIREMAN(FiremanID,FiremanName,FiremanPhone,FiremanHomeStation,StationAddress,StationPhone)
TRUCK(TruckID,License,TruckHome)
Referencial Integriety Statements
FireID in FIRE_Report must exist in FireID in FIRE
FiremanID in FIRE_Report must exist in Fireman
TruckID in FIRE_REPORT must exist in TruckID in TRUCK
Please, someone tell me if this is right or not. -cheers
Hi everyone..
Well i have my tables ready to build the database on to the sql server... My probs is normalization of the tables being used in the database....
Is there any best possible way / [short-cut.. very weird to ask this :) ] using the sql server...?
I have a web app which is used to do normal insert/update of employee info. Connected to each employee that is entered is some data that is imported from an outside source for each employee. The question I have is currently my database is very normalized and importing data from this outside source will be quite a pain because of this. Is it bad practice to denormalize a specific table if no user will every insert/update it beside DTS?
View 11 Replies View RelatedWhat's my question is ? Whether there are any tools available for normalization produced by Database vendors or any third party. If yes, Can u kindly give me clear documentation.
Thanks,
venkat.
venkat_26178@yahoo.com
whether there are any tools for Normalization? If yes, Can u please send some documentation or some reference where I can get them.
-venkat
venkat_26178@yahoo.com
Does this show "poor" design? It has been suggested to me to do a "Logical Model" of my data base and that will make it easier to "normalize" the tables. I tried this and come up with the following but I don't know if I am stretching it too thin. One rule of the 2NF is to ensure all tables have a primary key, and as you can see, my tbProjectTeam has a primary key, but that is made up of the entire row. Same goes for the tbDepartmentActivities.
tbEstimatedProjects
Reference (PK) | Name | City | Postal |...
-----------------------------------------------------------
1 | Some Project | Niagra Falls | N8E7J5 | ....
tbAwardedProjects
Project (PK) | Reference
-------------------------
1001 | 1
tbProjectTeam
Project (PK)| Login (PK) | Activity (PK)
-----------------------------------------
1001 | jsmith | Detailer
tbEmployees
Login (PK) | First | Last |......
----------------------------------
jsmith | Jim | Smith |.....
tbDepartmentListing
Login | DeptCode
---------------------
jsmith | ENG
tbDepartments
Code | Department
------------------------
ENG | Engineering
tblDepartmentActivities
Code (PK) | Activity (PK)
----------------------
ENG | Engineering
ENG | Detailer
Am I taking this too far or is the above structure something to be expected by a "good" normalized table structure?
Mike B
I've come up with this issue in several apps now. There are things that, fromone perspective, are all handled the same, so it would be desirable that theyall be handled in the same table with some field as a type specification.From other perspective of foreign key relationships, however, they aredifferent things and can't be stored in the same table.For example, I have a scheme for indicating mappings between dimension recordsat one time period to new dimension records at another time period. I coulduse one set of tables for all mappings since they all work exactly the sameway, but then I can't set up DRI between the mapping tables and the dimensiontables. If I just make separate mapping tables for each dimension table, thenI'm creating 4 new tables per dimension table, all identical with respect towhat fields they contain, what kinds of unique constraints they have, and whatrelationships they have to each other with the sole distinction that they eachmap to the integer-type key of a different dimension table. I would not lookforward to doing maintenance on this schema!Is there any strategy for having the cake and eating it, too?
View 7 Replies View RelatedI have 3 code tables :
create table cd_fiq_a
( fiq_id int not null primary key, fiq_name varchar(50) not null)
create table cd_sal_b
( sal_id int not null primary key, sal_name varchar(50) not null)
create table cd_rak_c
( rak_id int not null primary key, rak_name varchar(50) not null)
insert into cd_fiq_a values (1, 'Fiq1')
insert into cd_fiq_a values (2, 'Fiq2')
insert into cd_sal_b values (1, 'Sal1')
insert into cd_sal_b values (2, 'Sal2')
insert into cd_sal_b values (3, 'Sal3')
insert into cd_sal_b values (4, 'Sal4')
insert into cd_sal_b values (5, 'Sal5')
insert into cd_rak_c values (1, 'Rak1')
insert into cd_rak_c values (2, 'Rak2')
insert into cd_rak_c values (3, 'Rak3')
insert into cd_rak_c values (4, 'Rak4')
Now there is a relationship between cd_fiq_a, cd_sal_b and cd_rak_c. For a given Faq there can be one or more records of Sal. For a given Fiq and a given Sal there can be one or more records of Rak.
I am thinking that i can do it one table or two tables:
One Table Solution
----------------------------
create table relation_d
( relation_id int not null primary key,
fiq_id int not null foreign key REFERENCES cd_fiq_a (fiq_id),
sal_id int not null foreign key REFERENCES cd_sal_b (sal_id),
rak_id int not null foreign key REFERENCES cd_rak_c (rak_id),
sort_order int not null )
Two Table Solution
---------------------------
create table relation_header_d
( relation_header_id int not null primary key,
fiq_id int not null foreign key REFERENCES cd_fiq_a (fiq_id),
sal_id int not null foreign key REFERENCES cd_sal_b (sal_id) )
create table relation_detail_e
( relation_detail_id int not null primary key,
relation_header_id int not null foreign key REFERENCES relation_header_d (relation_header_id),
rak_id int not null foreign key REFERENCES cd_rak_c (rak_id),
sort_order int not null )
Which solution is more normalized and will result in better execution of Sql? Or is there any other solution which is more better?
Thanks
Hello all,
My question concerns the amount of normalization i require for my specific needs. I realize this is a difficult question without knowing alot more about my database. I am hoping with some information I could get advice from those more experienced than I.
- My database consists of 9 tables with the maximim number of columns being 11 which is the contacts table.
- the largest data type is nvarchar 125.
- number of rows in the largest table will eventually grow to hundreds of thousands.
- users access the database online
This is large to me but I expect that to some of you this not.
My application would be easier to setup if the contacts table were to include address info.
So my question is, for a database of this size could I create a contacts table similar to the customer table in the Microsoft Northwind sample data base with the address included, or should I model something more like the contact table in the Microsoft Adventureworks db with the address and State/province split to separate tables.
Any help you could provide with this scetchy info would be greatly appreciated.
Hai everybody recently i came across this article and i have tried to answer all the follwoing questions. But i am not sure its correct or not..so you peoples can comment on the follwoing questions.
2)
Employee (ssn, Name, Salary, Address, ListOfSkills)
Yes,
No. Ans: No. as list of skills would be repeated.
3)
Department (Did, Dname, ssn)
Yes,
No. Ans: No. ssn and did should be moved to a seperate table.
4)
Vehicle (LicensePlate, Brand,
Model, PurchasePrice, Year, OwnerSSN, OwnerName
Yes,
No Ans: No.
5)
Employee (ssn, Name, Salary, did) (obs.:
employee can only belong to one department)
Yes,
No. Ans: Yes.
6)
Customer (Cust_Id, Name, Salesperson, Region) where Salesperson
determines Region.
Yes,
No. Ans: No.Salesperson and region should be moved to a seperate table.
7)
Component (ItemNo, ComponentNo, ItemName, Quantity) where ItemNo
-> ItemName
Yes,
No. Ans: No.As itemname is a subset of itemno and not a subset of both itemno and componentno.
Hi All
Please guide me in the following situation. I am new in programming
I have a master table tblCompany with fields: Company Name, Address, Phone number
Second table is tblUsers with Company Name, User Name , Password
Third table is tblDealing with field Company Name , Dealer Name, Dealer Address
According to the normalization rules I shoud put a column named Company_Id in tblCompany(master table)
and use it in other two tables instead of CompanyName colum to reduce the data retundancy.
But my question is accessing data from master detail tables with join quries will take more processing time(taking the company name against the company ID). On the other hand memory wise its same to store the company ID(like 0012786) and company name (like somecompany Ltd). So should I go for normalization or simply store the Company name in each table.
Thanks
helloI've a denormalized table PRODUCTS with following fields:ProductNo ,OrderNo ,SerialNo ,OrderDate ,PromiseDate ,ManufacturerID ,......DistributorID ,DealerID ,......ReceiptDate ,......I have to denormalize this table, so I created 3 tables:Table Name : ProductOrdersFields:+ProducrOrderID,ProductNo ,OrderNo ,SerialNo ,OrderDate ,PromiseDate ,ManufacturerID ,-------------------------------Table Name: ProductsOrdersDetailsFields:+ProductsOrdersDetailsID,ProductOrdersID,DistributorID ,DealerID......-----------------------Table Name: ProductsOrdersReceiptsFields:+ProductsOrdersReceiptsID,ProductsOrdersDetailsID,ReceiptDate ,......----------------------------DistributorID and DealerID appear in Details table because aparticular order number for a specific product number can come fromdifferent distributor and dealer.What I need is a query to populate these normalized tables from theoriginal denormalized Products table.Can any one please help?Thanks
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi!
I wonder what would be the best (at to be honest - how to do it at all) to perform data normalization with SSIS. The scenario is as follows:
I got plain table with several columns in it.Some of columns can be copied straight into destination tableSome columns (String) should be lookup in another table to get IDOn success just replace string with IDOn fail - create new record in lookup table and return newly created ID
Thanks for any ideas and maybe short samples
Anrijs Vitolins
:eek: =>First ,2nd ,3rd normalization
=>Data Integrity
=>Mappings-
1 1:1 mappings
2 1:2 mappings
3 Many :MAny mappings
=>Establish relationship
1.Simple
2.Complex
3. Multiple
Defination of these all or details with subjects also
pls reply me soon
it is urgent for me
thanks in advance
We need to store land title information about properties in variousAustralian states, but each state maintains it's own land titleregistry and use different columns (well actually differentcombinations of the same columns). For example:Victoria store:TorrensUnitTorrensVolumeTorrensFolioQueensland store:TorrensCountyTorrensLotTorrensPlanTorrensParishTorrensUnitTorrensVolumeTorrensTitleRefThere are 11 different columns and they are used in 8 differentcombinations depending on the state.Since we need to store information about land in different states I seetwo possible solutions:1. A sparse table containing the 11 columns with a CHECK constraint toenforce the valid combinations.2. A table for each state containing only the columns relevant to thestate with a foreign key relationship to the table containing thecommon columns.I'm not sure if the data type and length is consistent between statesyet (waiting to find this out) but assuming that it is which of theseapproaches is going to be the most rigorous? I'm leaning towards (2)but I don't like the feel of a table per state.
View 4 Replies View Related I have a form that I am building and I've run into this problem. There is a section on the form that checks if a person wants to sign up for a AM shift or PM shift for a Show. What I need to know is how do I normalize the form to reflect that in the database? Here is what the user would see on the web form.
Show AM Shift PM Shift
--------------------------------------------------
Show #1 checkbox checkbox
Show #2 checkbox checkbox
Show #3 checkbox checkbox
Here is what I have so far in the table design:
Table Shows
--------------------
ShowID int PK
Name nvarchar(50) Not Null
Table Person
--------------------
PersonID int PK
FirstName nvarchar(50) Not Null
LastName nvarchar(50) Not Null
Table Shift
----------------
ShiftID int PK
Name bit Not Null
I have a pretty intensive query that I need performance help on. There are ~1 million de-normalized 'adjustment rows' that I am checking about 20 different conditions on, but each of these conditions has multiple possibile entries.
For example, one condition is 'what counties apply' to each row? Now I could cross-join a table listing every county that applies to every row, which would mean 1 million rows X 3,000 potential counties. And for every one of these 20 condition, I'd need to be joining tables for each of these lookups.
Instead, I was told to do a binary comparison of some sort, but I'm not exactly sure of how to do it. This way, I'm not needing to do any joins, but just have a large binary string, with bits representing each county.
Since each query I know the exact county searched, I can see if each row applies (along with each of the other conditions I must check vs the other binary strings).
I accomplished this using:
AND Substring(County, @CountyIndex, 1) = '1'
I have a character string for county, which is painfully slow when running all of these checks.
My hope is if the county in the lookup is 872, I can just scan the table, looking at bit #872 for the county field in each record, rather than joining huge tables for every one of these fixed fields I need to test.
My guess is the fastest way is some sort of binary string comparisons, but I can't find any good resources on the subject. PLEASE HELP!
What I need to know is how to get repeated data from a existing table, to normalized tables with out typing it...
Example:
---------------------
| ID |TEXT | TAGS |
---------------------
| 1 |text1|repeating|
| 2 |text2|repeating|
----------------------
How to normalization would be use 3 tables ,one for tags_id and tags, and another relating the tags_id to ID from the table above...but how does the code already know there is a tag called repeating?
I have a pretty intensive query that I need performance help on. There are ~1 million de-normalized 'adjustment rows' that I am checking about 20 different conditions on, but each of these conditions has multiple possibile entries.
For example, one condition is 'what counties apply' to each row? Now I could cross-join a table listing every county that applies to every row, which would mean 1 million rows X 3,000 potential counties. And for every one of these 20 condition, I'd need to be joining tables for each of these lookups.
Instead, I was told to do a binary comparison of some sort, but I'm not exactly sure of how to do it. This way, I'm not needing to do any joins, but just have a large binary string, with bits representing each county.
Since each query I know the exact county searched, I can see if each row applies (along with each of the other conditions I must check vs the other binary strings).
I accomplished this using:
AND Substring(County, @CountyIndex, 1) = '1'
I have a character string for county, which is painfully slow when running all of these checks.
My hope is if the county in the lookup is 872, I can just scan the table, looking at bit #872 for the county field in each record, rather than joining huge tables for every one of these fixed fields I need to test.
My guess is the fastest way is some sort of binary string comparisons, but I can't find any good resources on the subject. PLEASE HELP!
Hi everyone,
What is the main difference between first form normalizations and second form normalization ?
In my opinion, they are both generated for the same operation which is to prevent redundancy(in other words; duplication of data in several records).
So would you please explain it to me ?
Thanks
We replicate a SQL2000 database (DataBaseA) to a SQL2000 database (DataBaseB) by using the Restore function and hasn't change its logical name but only the physical data path and file name. It is running fine for a year. We use the same way to migrate the DataBaseB to a new SQL2005 server with the Restore function and the daily operation is running perfect. However, when we do the Backup of DatabaseB in the SQL2005, it just prompt the error message
System.Data.SqlClient.SqlError: The backup of full-text catalog 'DataBaseA' is not permitted because it is not online. Check errorlog file for the reason that full-text catalog became offline and bring it online. Or BACKUP can be performed by using the FILEGROUP or FILE clauses to restrict the selection to include only online data. (Microsoft.SqlServer.Smo)
Please note we left the DataBaseA in the old SQL2000 server.
Please help on how we can delete the Full-text catalog from DatabaseB so we can do a backup
Many Thanks
I have database on localhost and i want to show this data on my website. I want to create a database online and want to sync with Local Host. Can it be possible syncing data automatically after some interval?
View 6 Replies View Relatedyes,I have an error, like 'The database file may be corrupted. Run the repair utility to check the database file. [ Database name = SDMMC Storage Cardwinpos_2005WINPOS2005.sdf ]' .I develope a program for Pocket Pcs and this program's database sometimes corrupt.what can i do?please help me
View 4 Replies View RelatedI want to create a duplicate database in sql 2000 using asp.net from a webform
I created a database using CREATE DATABASE .......
But how to copy tables, views, stored procedures to newly created
database from old using asp.net from webform
Is there any another method to create a duplicate database with another name
from existing database on same server ?