I am developing an estimating application and at the "quantity takeoff" level, all products/equipment/sub contracting/etc.... end up on the same table because of the common elements:
Item | Quantity | Unit Price | SubTotal | Total
Now, since the unit price of a product is not determined from the same tables as the unit price of equipment rentals or sub contract work, etc...
how do I direct the attention to the appropriate table when trying to obtain the unit price or edit the unit price etc...
If my question is not clear, let me know, I will try to clarify.
I would like to create a table called product. My objective is to get list of packages available for each product in data grid view column while selecting each product. Each product may have different packages type (eg:- Nos, CTN, OTR etc). Some product may have two packages and some for 3 packages etc. Quantity in each packages also may be differ ( for eg:- for some CTN may contain 12 nos or in other case 8 nos etc). Prices for each packages also will be different that also need to show. How to design the table..
Product name : Nestle milk | Rainbow milk packages : CTN,OTR, NOs |
CTN, NOs Price: 50,20,5 | 40,6
(Remarks for your reference):CTN=10nos, OTR=4 nos | CTN=8 Nos
We need to Insert/Update a Fact Table from staging Table. currently we are using a SP which update Fact Table for Each region. this process is schedule, every 5 min job is run and Update fact table.but time of Insert and Update too long from staging to Fact, currently we are using merge statement for Insert and update.in my sp we are looping number how many region we need to update and at a time single Region we are updating using while loop in current SP.
I have a requirement of table partitioning. we have 10 years of data on a table which is 30 billion up rows on 2005 server we are upgrading it to 2014. we have to keep 7 years of data. there is no keys on table or date column. since its a huge amount of data and many users its slow down the process speed. we are thinking to do partition on 7 years for Quarterly based. but as i said there is no date column on table we have to use reference table to get date. is there a way i can do the partitioning with out adding date column on table? also does partition will make query faster?
I have think three ways to do it. 1. leave as it is. 2. 7 years partition on one server 3. 3 years partition on server1 and 4 years partition on server2 (for 4 years is snapshot better?)
I have to tables like given below Landing table "A" (Data load will happen over here, No primary keys mentioned over here) table "B" .Now I want to move the data from A to B.I have made use of below query insert into B select * from A...Landing table "A" has huge no of records, MS SQL server is taking huge amount of time.any alternative way to make this insertion process faster?
Hi, I am developing an application to a garment factory. I have a doubt in designing a table.Basic tables:Jobs, JobColors, Material, Units, Currencies ...These tables are designed with normalization rules.I got a problem at PurchaseOrderDetailsMain table is JobMaterial. It has materialid, jobid, supplierid, description and TypeFactor(which represents the type of order) means that the material is ordered based on size or colors or total qty.1 for ByColor, 2 for BySize, 3 for ByQty, 4 for By Contrast colorsThe main problem at the details of the sub table.JobMaterialDetailsIf typefactor is by size, i need to store the details based on sizeex: S - 2000pcs, M - 4000pcs, L - 4000pcs, XL - 2000pcsSo I will have 4 records per each sizeIf it is by color, White - 3000pcs, Portabella - 5000pcs, Black - 2000pcs.If it is by general, Total qty 10000pcsHow can I design this table. If I take, ColorOrSize column, it will refer different values for diffrent typefactor. When by size, it will have Size and when by color, it will refer colorcode.But colors are having referential integrity. So it is violated other than by color as typefactor.What is the best way to design this table?Can anybody suggest?Thanks in advance
I am desingning a table and i have a column OrderID and another column call Order, is neccessary to use a primary key, because One OrderID may have many Orders? Thanks.
Coming from a support background and having to design my first database I have a couple of questions re- table design. Firstly I have set up several tables and included one field (of the same name) in each. This is a primary key in one table with an incremental seed. I would like this info to appear in the other tables although these can be duplicates in the other tables. How is it best to achieve this relationship. From reading it suggest FK in the relationship application but looking at other databases this seems to have been achieved by some other means. Is it more common to use stored procedures to enforce this? If so please add pointers. Secondly, I have set up a couple of master tables to act as looks ups for fields in other tables. Again how do I get this to look up the table - is it done through stored procedures or at the time of writing the front end application?? Sorry if this is all basic stuff but it is new to me.
I have created a table with above column width. The rowsize is more than 8kb.And the table holds millions of rows of data. So is it a correct way of designing the table? Or how can I redesign this table.
I'm currently developing a real estate system to manage order processing and work flow. I'm a little uncertain as to how to design the tables because an order can have N number of applicants, owners, buyers, and properties. There are cases where there are 9 different buyers and some where the number of properties exceeds 20. It seems that normalization might make the situation crazy, but I'm a touch rusty. Thanks.
Hi am trying to figure out my table design need some advice
I have a table that catches the telephone numbers of a customer , there are 5 telephones for each customer. All the numbers are there in the DB
Should I create the design in the following format
CustomerName Tel1 Tel2 Tel3 Tel4 Tel5
Or Should I have
Customer Telephone
& then have 5 rows for each customer
Please advice
I even wanted to knw how should the design be , if all the Tel Nos are not captured, I mean what if some customers have 3 tel Nos, while some may just have 1 while some may have all 5
Hi I'm having trouble figuring out this database design and normalising the data. Following are the tables and I am wonder if it can be normalised any further. This is a database of Architects and their work history and building they have designed.
Architects: FirstName LastName Gender DOB Bio
Works: Title Client Type_of_Building Style Address Year_Designed Year_Completed Comments Architect_ID
Firm: (this is the various firms that the architect has worked for) CompanyName Address
EmploymentHistory: (when the architect worked with a particular firm) Year_Start Year_End Firm_ID Architect_ID
Publication: (where the architects works were published) Author Date_Publication Title Source Publisher Architect_ID
I would really appreciate some help and suggestions on creating the relationships. thanks
employee table ------------------------ EMP_ID varchar NAME varchar DEPARTMENT_CODEint POSITION_CODEint COUNTRY_CODEint
department table ------------------ DEPARTMENT_CODEint DEPARTMENT_NAMEvarchar
position table --------------- POSITION_CODEint POSITION_NAMEvarchar
country table ------------- COUNTRY_CODEint COUNTRY_NAMEvarchar
In employee table I have to store two country names. ie. employee currently working in this country but his home country name (origin country) is another name. In country table all countries information available. ie. country_code and country_name.
How I can design the employee table that it get country_name from COUNTRY TABLE ? but we can not use same country_code in two fields.
OR otherwise I will have to create employee table like this
I'm struggling coming up with an optimal table design for the following scenario.
I have a table in which each row is recording information about a document - author, publisher, publication, title, abstract and so forth. I also have an image table which contains information about the images which can be associated with the documents.
Each document can have on of three image types associated with it - an author photo, a publisher logo and a publication logo. There aren't actually that many different authors, publishers and publications in the database so it would be common for many documents to have the same author or the same publisher although authors sometimes write for different publications. In the current setup it's possible for a document to have more than one image of each type associated with it, which is undesirable - this needs to eliminated and we need to ensure that each document can only have one image of each type associated with it.
It'd also be a huge boon if I could get all the information about a document and it's attached images with a single database call. In the current setup, trying to do this returns multiple rows so I've ended up making two calls, one for the document and one for it's attached images.
I can see two possible ways of setting this up, neither of which appeal.
The first is to add three columns to my document table to record the image URLs which is simple but inflexible should I want to add more image types later on.
The second is to set up three new tables for author, publisher and publication and associate each of these with the document table through a key and then to the image table through another key. There's also an image type table which is going to come in to play. I'm unwilling to do this because it's going to just explode the number of tables I've got, especially if we add more image types, and play havoc with my XML schemas.
Is there another way of rationalizing this that I've missed?
I am trying to decide between 2 table designs. I basically have several different types of work items that need to be tracked. Each work item has their own set of statuses, some of which may be the same as other work item's statuses, some of which will be unique for that work item.
Now, should I create one status table for each work item, or would it be better to use one status table, but add a column to track which work item the status belongs to?
I'm not sure which is a better design, or perhaps there is some alternate design that is better. Any help is appreciated.
Currently I need to design database table and got stuck.
I have a project and its sub projects. A parent project and its sub projects share the same requirement.The description of the requirement will be changed every day. For example Project A - Do Some thing 1 on Project A [09/28/2007] Project A-A1 - Do Some thing 1 on Project A [09/28/2007] , Do Some thing 2 on Project A [09/29/2007]
Every time the comments updated, both project A and project A-A1 should share the same update i.e select project A and its subproject will be displayed Project A Do Some thing 1 on Project A [09/28/2007] , Do Some thing 2 on Project A [09/29/2007] Project A-A1 Do Some thing 1 on Project A [09/28/2007] , Do Some thing 2 on Project A [09/29//2007]
When you tried to insert new sub project, the requirement will be shared with the parent project ie. Project A - Do Some thing 1 on Project A [09/28/2007] Project A-A1 - Do Some thing 1 on Project A [09/28/2007] , Do Some thing 2 on Project A [09/29/2007] Project A-A2 - Do Some thing 1 on Project A [09/28/2007] , Do Some thing 2 on Project A [09/29/2007] , Do Some thing 2 on Project A-A2 [09/30/2007]
assume Project A-A1 and Project A-A2 are sub project of project A
Could anyone show me how to design the database table for those mess?
I have a huge database and off lately, I have been experiencing some performance issues on some queries. Some of my tables now have over 10 million records. I noticed the performance issue was caused mainly from one table created as a work around. If I remove the column from the workaround table (but still leave the table in the query), I get the results in 1 second. However if I include a column from the workaround table, the same query takes 14 seconds (same output only an extra column) . I will appreciate any advise on a better design to get around my workaround table.
Below is my scenario
Table - Team ------------------- Column - TeamID (Primary Key) TeamName
Table - Matches --------------------------- Columns - MatchID (Primary Key) MatchName Team1ID (Foreign to "TeamID" in Table "Team") Team2ID (Foreign to "TeamID" in Table "Team")
Table - Players ---------------------- Columns - PlayerID (Primary) TeamID (Foreign to "TeamID" in Table "Team") PlayerName
The above tables work very well... The tables I listed below are my cause of issue... I need to write a query to list every match with the names of players who played in it comma delimited (one row per match).
I created a table
Table - MatchPlayer ----------------------------- Columns - MatchPlayerID (Primary) MatchID (Foreign to "MatchD" in Table "Match") PlayerID (Foreign to "PlayerD" in Table "Player")
But I couldnt write a query that would list me all the players comma delimited in one row per match..
This allows me to easily list the player names comma delimited per match but is a very bad design. Is it possible to list the same using the table Match Player.
need help here pertaining to the database table definitions
all was well when i started using it a month or 2 ago until now that when i tried to redesign my tables,it wouldnt prompt me to choose a primary key for my table
previously what happened was that when i saved the table without selecting an attribute as a primary key,it would prompt me to do so nu could choose to have the primary key auto-generated
but now it seems it stopped prompting me about it
whats wrong with it?anyone else faced this?
pardon my question,im a noob at this sql server thingie
We are in the early stages of developing a small project and I have a question I would like an opinion on. When deciding how to design a table to store information on users who will be different types. The project involves setting up webpage that allow " appointment setters" to book demos for our Sales reps. We want to keep track of how many each appointment setter books. I have a user table with user_id, fname,lname, type. Where type represents the type of users they will be either "appointment setter" or "Sales Rep". In the Appointment table I would like to store the Appoinment setter ID, sales rep Id, date/time appointment was booked and some other data on the appointment. My question is how do I set up the relationship from the appointment table back to the user table. Since each record in the appointment table will have a App Setter ID and a Sales Rep ID. Should I just pick either the app setter id or the sales rep id as the foreign key back to the userID in the user table. Or is there another method how to handle this. Any thoughts or articles would be greatly appreciated. thanks,
i would like to have my data rearranged to look like the following:
timestamp :var1 value :var2 value :var3 value ________________________________________________ 11:00 x y z 12:00 a b c ....
i am working with my database in a c sharp application. so if anyone does come up with a solution for this maybe keep that in mind so that i can discuss how to impliment it in the code.
i am putting together an application for a client of mine that involves image heavy data handling. i have a couple of possible methods in mind of how to go about this, and would like some outside opinions, especially from any of you who may have done anything similar before. to quickly sum up the application's desired results: a photo gallery that contains four sections of job before/after photos. 1)residential 2)comercial 3) automotive and 4)specialty. when a site browser clicks a section, it will bring up a gridview of the "key" or ideal photo (one each)from several different jobs. the site browser can then click the photo, and a new page (or new control, does'nt make much difference) will come up showing all photos for that particular job.) past and current customers will create user logins to have ability to upload photos of their specific job. admin needs ability to 1)upload photos for many jobs 2)review all photos before posting them to the gallery 3) would like to give admin ability to order the photos within the gallery and within each job 4)admin needs ability to create tagline with short description either for each photo or at least for each job. as to the design of the data, i can either store the images themselves in the database, or create tables to tag the images with various identifying data, then simple store and call the images in a directory on the server. i have code to do either. i am trying to construct a database design to handle all issues. i like the idea of storing photos in the database more, just not sure how to architect it. it would be the 4 albums, each with infinitely create-able 'job' albums within, each job album housing job photos. i am thinking the images maybe get a table for their specific info (ID as primary key, image itself, file type, length, and a foriegn key to a job table that has jobID primary key) the job table could have a job name that user inputs, thus identifying all photos to the same job. the job table would also foriegn key to the album table id, with its four categories of residential, automotive, commercial, and specialty. does this method seem feasible? if this system seems workable, i can throw in a boolean default to false for the admin to set true to display the job photos as a whole, with admin power to delete photos on an individual basis. but i am a little stumped how he can maybe order them? maybe an int field that he can edit and just manually put the jobs in the order he wants? and then put the photos under the jobs in the order he wants as well? it seems i have somewhat thought this out just now while writing, so it seems i have a somewhat workable solution, if awkward, but if anybody knows a simpler, or tried and true, method, please let me know any ideas, suggestions, and help is greatly appreciated.
Hi all I am more of a front end UI developer but have been tasked with building a project from scratch - here is my question. I need to store information on Cases (e.g. Helpdesk calls/Customer Complaints etc...) and then against each Case and number of Activities. This is what I have come up with:
I have a question regarding table design (I'm using SQL Server Express 2005). Is it better and is there a performance gain by using layout # 2 instead of layout # 1? Someone told me it was better to divide everything up but it seems kind of useless here, plus it complicates the handling. So I want to know which one is faster (or better) considering large amount of records. Thanks! Layout # 1Objet==========ObjetIDClientIDObjetTypeStateObjetNoTitleDescriptionStartDateReturnDateEndDateLayout # 2 Objet==========ObjetIDClientIDObjetTypeStateDetailsObjet==========DetailIDObjetIDObjetNoTitleDescriptionStartDateReturnDateEndDate
Hi there everyone, I am starting to develop a new internal website for my company, for logging calls, reports and billings. I am still busy looking at the best way to design the layout of the DB. My biggest concern is a billings table design. What it should do is, that when work was completed, the consultant must add his billings to the logged call. My problem is that i will never know how many individual items will be billed for. I was thinking of just creating a table with [id, call_id, item_1, cost_1, quan_1, item_2, cost_2, quan_2, item_3, cost_3, quan_3...........] but i think (hope) that there must be a better way of doing this. RegardsJacques Thomas
If i have a "VarChar" field in a database and it is set to something like 500 chars for each entry - if that field is not filled with data, or if it is only filled with a small amount of data (i.e. only 3 chars of the 500) is space allocated each time for the full 500 chars or does "VarChar" only use up the number of chars entered for the row - and if nothing is entered does it use up no space (in that field)?I'm trying to decide if i need to design my table structure in such a way that it does not waste space as i have a field that "once in a while" something could be entered but not very often.
Hello, could someone pls help me with this table design.
I have a project table and a code table. The code table has things like priorities (High, Medium, Low).
Now, I want all projects to be able to use these 'global' codes as well as define their own. So, they could define their own priority code 'Critical', that only their project can see.
Hello, I have a question on how best to set up my tables for a project. Here's the details...
I am creating a Tasks List us ASP.NET w/ VB. I currently have only two tables..
Tasks ... TaskID - int ID Column ... Title - varchar to Store Task Title ... Building - int 0,1,2,3 Each # Representing a Building ... Details - varchar Store Details about Task ... Status - int 0,1,2 (Not Started, In Progress, Complete) ... DateDue - datetime Stores Date Task is Due ... DateCreated - datetime (getdate() on insert) ... Priority - int 0,1,2 (Low, Med, High) ... AssignedTo - int Stores ID of Person Responsible
Tasks Users ... UserID - int ID Column ... UserName - varchar Stores Name of Users ... Role - int 0,1,2,3,4 (Used to Filter Users by Department)
I'm having to do lots of conversions for Building, Status, Priority, and AssignedTo. Should I be storing these values in the Tasks table, or should I set up additional tables to use as lookups? Any input on how to improve my current design would be apprieciated.
Just had a quick question for you . I have these 3 tables that are related in some way - below are the structures. I know the structures are correct and they work fine. However, I am using Visio Enterprise Architect to design these tables and when I try to generate the code, I get an error saying that it does not like the table with 2 fields as the primary key. And I just wanted to get feedback to find out whether I am correct or Visio is.
Table: Orders Columns: OrderID int PK Name varchar(100) Phone varchar(20)
Table: Products Columns: ProductID int PK Name varchar(100)
Table: OrderLineItems Columns: OrderID int PK ProductID int PK Price money
I have a fairly tricky problem that I'm not sure how to approach.
I'm making a web application that manages drug trials. One of the requirements of the system is if anyone makes changes to a field, the old value and the new value need to be stored, along with the time of the change and the reason for the change
The problem is I don't know how to support this for all the various fields in all the various tables.
For example I have tables for storing basic patient details and then tables for storing data on patient visits, patient screening data and so on.
Can anyone suggest how I could make a table or tables to store this audit data for all the fields in all the tables? I'm not sure how to do it!
Im trying to design a database to use in SQL server , the design i've got now is working but It just doesn't look right to me and there must be a better way to set things out.
Heres the current situation
Theres 3 tables
USERTYPES
USERS
TICKETS
The users table holds the user information i.e.
userID userName Phone Number userTypeID *
It contains a foreign key called userTypeID which is a primary key of USERTYPES
The USERTYPES table contains the two types of users on the system , these are standard and admin, so the table looks like this.
USERTYPESID typeName
The TICKETS table holds the ticket details of tickets submitted by users. so
Now here is where I have the problem, the ticketRequestor is a foreign key of the STAFF table staffID however AssignedTo is also a foreign key of the STAFF table staffID.
Currently in order to get this working i've had to turn off the enforce relationship for the AssignedTO - staffID link but idealy I think this enforce relationship should be on to ensure its a truely relational.
any ideas as to what I need to do to organise the relationships better ?
Hi, this is a trivial question.I am trying to make a 2 point decimal stored in the sql database.For example,a field called, "Points", will have values such as 100.00, 107.07, 99.88, 56.01 etc...and all decimals like 108.009 would round up to 108.01.Now, in the design table of the sql server. Column Name Data Type Length Allow NullsPoints Decimal 9 Yes-------------------------------------Description (blank)Default Value (blank)Precision 18Scale 0Formula (blank)The numbers in red are assign by default. How would I alter that to make it a 2 decimal point number? What should I change to make it work? Thank you
