I am creating a windows forms application that must control the entry and exit of people in an office building. These people may be visitors or employees, and everybody must use an access card at the building entrance. A card will be programmed temporarily when the person is a visitor, and the employees should use their own cards. My doubt is about my database. Is there a way to do this nicely? The cards (no matter if it is an employee or visitor ) has a strong key to the ratchet can identify it wich comes from the manufacturer of turnstiles and I can't change it. So, my structure is:
In my database, I have a table where I keep the cards. When someone try to get inside the building, the turnstile sends to my system the date and time of access and the card code. Now I do not know how to separate the employees and visitors. Should I have a separated flow table to employees and visitors? For the employees flow table, I get the employees card from the card table using the same ID. In the visitor flow table, I need to know who is the visitor using the temporary card (the key to the temporary card never changes, so I can not rely on me only in the key). Or should I only have a flow table with a Visitor_ID and Worker_ID column , one of which will always be null (so I know if it was an employee or a visitor by the field with a value).
Can anyone tell me which of the two is more applicable and why?
Employees and visitors are both people. Specifically people that may (or may not) have an access card assigned to them.
I would have one People table that has a foreign key relationship to the AccessCard table. If you only care about whether the person is an employee or visitor, but the information you store is otherwise identical, a boolean column is fine. If your system stores additional information for employees and/or visitors, create an Employees and Visitors table, and have a foreign key relationship from People to each of those.
I would create single table to store both employee and visitor then add an extra column for Type(E, V).
Related
I've got a problem with trying to transfer a data model to a data vault. I've tried a lot already but cannot figure out the correct way of identifying the hubs, links and satellites for this part of the diagram.
What is shown is a employee that works at a certain store. The issue here is the the employee_id on it's own does not uniquely identify a employee. Two employees can have employee_id 1 as long as they are working in different stores.
What would be the correct method of modelling this (what should be the hub, links and satellites)?
A business key can have more than one field.
In this case, the business key can be the store and the employe id (if you can have another field than an ID that uniquely identify the store and the employee that the end user can remember, it will be better).
I am attempting to create an Employee table in SQL Server 2016 and I want to use EmpID as the Primary Key and Identity. Here is what I believe to be true and my question: When I create the Employee table with EmpID as the Primary Key and an Identity(100, 1) column, each time I add a new employee, SQL Server will auto create the EmpID starting with 100 and increment by 1 with each new employee. What happens if I want to import a list of existing employees from another company and those employees already have an existing EmpID? I haven't been able to figure out how I would import those employees with the existing EmpID. If there is a way to import the employee list with the existing EmpID, will SQL Server check to make sure the EmpID's from the new list does not exist for a current employee? Or is there some code I need to write in order to make that happen?
Thanks!
You are right about primary keys, but about importing employees from another company and Merging it with your employee list, you have to ask these things:
WHY? Sure there are ways to solve this problem, but why will you merge other company employees into your company employee?
Other company ID structure: Most of the time, companies have different ID structure, some have 4 characters others have only numbers so on and so forth. But you have to know the differences of the companies ID Structure.
If the merging can't be avoided, then you have to tell the higher ups about the concern, and you have to tell them that you have to give the merging company new employee ID's which is a must. With this in my, simply appending your database with the new data is the solution.
This is an extremely normal data warehousing issue where a table has data sources from multiple places. Also comes up in migration, acquisitions, etc.
There is no way to keep the existing IDs as a primary key if there are multiple people with the same ID.
In the data warehouse world we would always create a new surrogate key, which is the primary key to the table, and include the original key and a source system identifier as two attributes.
In your scenario you will probably keep the existing keys for the original company, and create new IDs for the new employees, and save the oldID in an additional column for historical use.
Either of these choices also means that as you migrate other associated data such as leave information imported from the old system, you can translate it to the new key by looking up OldID in the employee table, and finding the associated newID to associate it with when saving your lave records in the new system.
At the end of the day there is no alternative to this, as you simply cant have two employees with the same primary key.
I have never seen any company that migrate employees from another company and keep their existed employee id. Usually, they'll give them a new ID and keep the old one in the employee file for references uses. But they never uses the old one as an active ID ever.
Large companies usually uses serial of special identities that are already defined in the system to distinguish employees based on field, specialty..etc.
Most companies they don't do the same as large ones, but instead, they stick with one identifier, and uses dimensions as an identity. These dimensions specify areas of work for employees, projects, vendors ..etc. So, they're used in the system globally, and affected on company financial reports (which is the main point of using it).
So, what you need to do is to see the company ID sequence requirements, then, play your part on that. As depending on IDENTITY alone won't be enough for most companies. If you see that you can depend on identity alone, then use it, if not, then see if you can use dimensions as an identity (you could create five dimensions - Company, Project, Department, Area, Cost Center - it will be enough for any company).
if you used identity alone, and want to migrate, then in your insert statement do :
SET IDENTITY_INSERT tableName ON
INSRT INTO tableName (columns)
...
this will allow you to insert inside identity column, however, doing this might require you to reset the identity to a new value, to avoid having issues. read DBCC CHECKIDENT
If you end up using dimensions, you could make the dimension and ID both primary keys, which will make sure that both are unique in the table (treated as one set).
I've run into a bit of a pickle during my development of a web application. I've boiled down the complexity of the application for sake of simplicity in this question.
The purpose of this web application is to sell insurance. Insurance can be purchased through an agent (Agency) or over the phone directly (Customer). Insurance policies can be paid through the agency or the customer can pay for the policy directly. So money is owed (invoiced) and received (payments) from multiple sources (Agencies/Customers).
Billing Options:
Agency (Agency collects from customer outside of app)
Customer
Here's where it gets complicated. Agencies are stored in a separate database table than customers (for obvious reasons). However, both agencies and customers need to be able to make payments and have invoices assigned to them. I'm having difficulty figuring out how to create the proper database schema to allow for both types of database records to be connected to their invoices and payments.
My initial plan was to set up separate relationship (joining) tables that link the agencies and customers to invoices/payments.
However, now that I've been thinking about the problem more, I think it might be beneficial to merge both agencies and customers into a single "Payee" table which would then be associated with payments/invoices. The payee table would only store a primary key. It would not contain actual names or info for the payee - instead I would pull that data via a JOIN with either the agencies or customers tables.
Regardless of whatever solution I choose I am still faced with the problem when creating a new payment record is that I need to scan both the agencies and customers table for possible payees. I'm wondering if there's a proper way to approach this from a database schema standpoint (or from an accounting/e-commerce standpoint).
What is the correct way to handle this type of situation? All ideas and possible solutions are most welcome!
Update 01:
After a few helpful suggestions (see below) I've come up with a possible solution that may solve this issue while keeping the data normalized.
The one thing about this method that rubs me the wrong way is that I will have to make multiple table selects to get a list of all the people who can potentially make payments and/or have invoices assigned to them.
Perhaps this is unavoidable though in this situation since indeed there are different "types" of people that can be associated with payments and invoices. I'm stuck with a situation where I have two different types of records that need to be associated to the same thing. In the above approach I'm using the FKs to link each table (Agencies/Customers) to a Payee record (the table that unifies both Agencies/Customers) and then ultimately links them to Payments and Invoices.
Is this the proper solution? Or is there something I've overlooked?
There are several options:
You might put this like you'd do it with OOP programming and inheritance.
There is one table Person which holds an uniqueID and a type (Agency, Customer, more in Future). Additionally you might add columns with meta-data like who inserted/when/why and columns for status/soft-delete/???
There are two tables Agency and Customer, both holding a PersonID as FK.
Your Payee is the Person
You might use a schema-bound VIEW with a UNION ALL to return both tables of your modell in one result. A unique index on this view should ensure, that you'll have a unique key, at least as combination of the table-source and the ID there.
You might use a middle table with the table-source and the ID there as unique Key and use this two-column-id in you payment process
For sure there are several more...
My best friend was the first option...
My suggestion would be: instead of Payees table - to have two linking tables:
PayeeInvoices {
Id, --PK
PayeeId,
PayeeType,
InvoiceId --FK to Invoices tabse
}
and
PayeePayments {
Id, --PK
PayeeId,
PayeeType,
PaymentId --FK to Payments table.
}.
PayeeType is an option of two: Customer or Agency. When creating a new payment record you can query PayeeInvoices by InvoiceId to get PayeeType and corresponding PayeeId, and then lookup the rest of the data in corresponding tables.
EDIT:
Having second thoughts now. Instead of two extra tables PayeeInvoices and PayeePayments, you can just have PayeeId and PayeeType columns right in Invocies and Payments tables, assuming that Invoice or Payment belongs only to one Payee (Customer or Agency). Both my solutions are not really normalized, though.
I'm creating this little Access DB, for the HR department to store all data related to all the training sessions that the company organizes for all the employees.
So, I have a Training Session table with information like date, subject, place, observations, trainer, etc, and the unique ID number.
Then there's the Personnel table, with employer ID (which is also the unique table number), names and working department.
So, after that I need another table that keeps a record of all the attendants of each training session. And here's the question, should I use a table for that in the first place? Does it have to be one table for each training session to store the attendants?
I've used excel for quite some time now, but I'm very new to Access and databases (even small ones like this). Any information will be highly appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
It should be one table for persons, one table for trainings, and one for participation/attendance, to minimize (or best: avoid) repetition. Your tables should use primary and foreign keys, so that there are one-to-many relationships between trainings and attendances as well as people and attendances (the attendances table would then have a column referring to the person who attended, and another column referring to the training session).
Google "database normalization" for more detail and variations of that principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization).
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Note: This is a rough copy i didnt include constraints, weak entities, ..., etc yet. I still need to have a solid understanding of this question.
Questions:
To keep track of what theater company manages performer, what performer is in two theatre companies do i have to make a unique code for each entity set in other entity sets to keep track of them?
Can start_Location simply point to Place for the theatre company entity?
Can an Actor be Born in a place or does it have to have a attribute that points to place?
Do my relationships so far make sense?
Are there any redundant attributes such as Short_Descript in Plays?
Can i make an attribute in Place called "Town, State/Department/Province"? Or does it have to be a composed attribute?
Please note: I will be editing and updating my diagram if I have more questions and such...
I would appreciate any suggestions or hints.
ERD:
Question Information:
An actor is born in a place and he/she lives presently in a place (this information is mandatory).
We store in the database only the last known place where the actor lives.
We need the following information for an actor: actor number, actor name , date when actor was born, and date when actor died (check if died > born).
An actor is a performer, or/and a theater director.
We store for performer the date when he/she started to perform.
We store for theater director the date when starts his/her last employment as theater director
We consider in DBActors the following types of plays: drama, comedy and tragedy.
For each we like to store the following data: play’s number , play’s title , play’s short description , year when it was written ,date when it was first presented on stage(p_date_p, date).
For dramas we store also the drama type,name of the main positive character, and name of main negative character.
The drama type is one of the following:
“classical”, “medieval”, “renaissance”, “nineteenth-century”, “modern”, and
“contemporary”
For comedies we store the comedy type, the name of main
character , and the name of the second character
The comedy type is one of the following: “ancient mroman”, “ancient greek”, “farce”, “comedy of humors”, “comedy of manners”,
“commedia dell’arte”, and “theater of absurd”;
For tragedies we store the tragedy type(t_type, varchar(20)),and name of main
character
The tragedy type is one of the following: “Greek”, “Roman”, “Renaissance”, “Neo
-classical”, and “Modern”
A play is written by one or many dramatists
It is possible that we do not know the dramatist for certain plays.
We store in the database all known plays even if they were not performed (“closet plays”)
Some actors are also dramatists.
We store in the database all known mdramatists.
An actor is hired by a unique theater company at any timestamp
He/she will stay in the same company the whole year when he/she was hired.
We store in the database the year when he/she was hired by the theater company
(small integer)
It is possible that the actor changes the theater company where he/she is
working during his/her life many times. It is possible that an actor is hired by the same company many times in different years. He/she can perform in
one or many plays (at least one)
which are presented by theater companies.
It is possible that an actor is hired by a theater company and performs in a play presented by another theater company.
It is unusual but possible that the same performer plays in the same play
presented by different theater companies. A theater company performs/presents
one or many plays every year.
Same play can be performed by one or many distinct theater companies.
We like to store in the database the date when the play starts to be performed
by a theater company.
It is possible that the same play is performed by different theater companies starting at same date.
We need to store for a dramatist his/her dramatist number,his/her name.
A dramatist wrote one or many plays(at least one).
The information to be stored in the database for each theater company
is: theater company number,theater company name , date when the
theater company started.
For each theater company we store in the database
the first location (place) where the theater company started
There might be more than one theater company starting in the same place.
A theater company must hire at least one actor.
Each theater company has a unique theater director.
He/she starts his/her work at a specific date.
It is possible that the same theater company has different theater directors but at distinct times and the same theater director manages different
theater companies in distinct times(never at the same date).
It is possible that the same theater director manages the same
theater company at different dates.
The information to be stored for place is: place number, town and state/department/province, place country
Here are my responses to your questions:
Whenever you look at two tables and see a Many to Many relationship, you can solve the problem easily using a linker table. Also known as a junction table “is a database table that contains common fields from two or more other database tables within the same database. It is on the many side of a one-to-many relationship with each of the other tables. Junction tables are known under many names, among them cross-reference table, bridge table, join table, map table, intersection table, linking table, many-to-many resolver, link table, pairing table, transition table, crosswalk, associative entity or association table.” Wikipedia example You saw me use these tables in your previous question. In this case you are stating that an actor can be managed my many Theater Companies and A Theater Company and also manage many Actors. This is a many to many so if you created a link table in between those tables for every relastionship between the two you’d add a new row in the link table that only contains a theater Company id and an actor id. If an actor was managed by many theater companies then you’d add several rows to the link table each holding the same actor id but each row having a different theater company’s id.
Yes, you can have start_Location point directly to place. This means that that Start_Location attribute must be a Foreign Key (FK) pointing the theater company to the Primary Key (PK) of the related Place record.
By all means an actor can be born in a place, but just like above, you need a column in Actor, that is a FK to the Place Table’s PK. You could call this column Birth_Place and all it’d hold is the PK of the record in Place that relates to the actor’s birth place. This column would also need to be NOT NULL because all actor’s need a Birth_Place.
So far it seems like your diagram will work to solve this problem, yes. Just see question 1’s answer for that follow up addition.
You’re getting good at removing redundancies. Your diagram looks good. The only suggestion, I’d make is why do you have a play table and then 3 separate play type tables? Why not add them together in on Table called Play. It’d sit exactly where Play currently sits in your diagram and contain the same attributes it already does, but you also add the following:
a. Type – Would be a string that you could place “Drama”, “Comedy”, or “Tradegy” in so you’d know exactly what type of play it is. Also this would allow you to add future play types to the plays table and not have to add a whole new table to the DB.
b. Sub_Type – Would also be a string and hold the type that you currently have under the separate tables. They are all essentially the same attribute in each table and would just hold different type descriptors depending on the parent Type.
c. Main_Character – Would be a string that holds the main character, because in your three separate tables, you have main characters. You’re just calling them 3 separate things. (get the direction I’m going in here? )
d. Secondary_Character – Would be a string that holds the secondary character. You have a secondary character in your dramas and comedies, but non in your tradegies so in tradegy records this column would wind up being null. See what I did there? You now have one table where you used to have 4, and in that one table you can retrieve all the same information you had in those 4 separate tables. Hopefully that’ll make your life easier.
You can do whatever you like, but I’m assuming you mean by best practices and it would be generally considered best practice to separate this single attribute into it’s Simple attribute sub parts. I.E. make it a composed attribute.