|
So talk to the person who posted it!
And I say again: the people who answer questions here are volunteers. Have a little patience.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I have posted it .. But I dont find any option to delete it..
|
|
|
|
|
Hello everybody,
i'm writing to ask an advice.
In my Access db, I've many tables but the most important table is named "Products".
The Primary Key for this table is the "Product Code".
For every product I've to save different fields. Some fields are descriptives fields that rarely change while other fields are prices fields that change different times per day.
Which is the best way to represent a product? I have these 3 ideas:
1) TABLE1 where I insert only descriptives fields and has the product code as primary key. TABLE2, where i save only prices, that has a relation one to one with the first table and share the primary key with it.
2) TABLE1 where I insert descriptives fields and an integer field at the end which is in relation with TABLE2 where I save prices. In this case the primary key of table2 will be an identity field. Also in this case it will be a one to one relation. I'm sceptic for this solution because I always add and remove products from table1 so, after 1 year it will be possible that I will have 10.000 product in my database but the primary key of TABLE2 will be a very big number like 50.000.
3) Only TABLE1 where I save every fields both desctiptives and prices fields.
Which is the best solution in your opinion? In this moment i've adopted the first solution...
Thank
Giacomo
|
|
|
|
|
It depends.
If a product can only ever have a single price, with no price-breaks, no customer-specific prices, etc., then store that price in the products table.
If you need a more complicated pricing structure, then store the prices in a separate table, with a one-to-many relationship between products and prices.
For example:
Prices:
ID (PK, Identity)
ProductCode (FK to products)
FromDate (optional)
ToDate (optional)
MinimumQuantity (optional)
MaximumQuantity (optional)
CustomerPriceGroup (optional)
Price
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much Richard....I think i will use your solution that is similar to my idea number 2 because, i forgot to explain, I will have to store different prices for every products....
|
|
|
|
|
If the ProduceCode is user editable then it should never be used as a foreign or primary key, use the ProductID an identity field.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
When I'll insert a product I'll also insert the ProductCode but then I never won't be able to modify it. I'll only be able to remove the product
|
|
|
|
|
JackMisani wrote: Which is the best solution in your opinion?
A normalized model. Rules for normalization can be found on the wiki 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
JackMisani wrote: that rarely change while other fields are prices fields that change different times per day.
What happens if someone wants to return something that they bought yesterday?
If they order it online two weeks ago and it ships today what price are they charged?
|
|
|
|
|
My products will be only stocks.
Every stocks has always a trading code that i'll use as PK. For every stocks i need to store 2 kinds of fields:
1) Descriptive fields that changes rarely like: description, isin code, country, expiration
2) Prices fields like: last price, minimun, maximum
When I launch my app i will load my db data in my memory and i'll start to download prices from servers. I'll do calculation between the prices i've in memory and the price I receive from server and only when i'll click "Save" button i'll write data in my db....-
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
I have a stored procedure as below,
ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[usp_Update_Service_Program_Detail]
@PK_Service_Program_County_RateCap_Detail int,
@Unit_Type int,
@Rate_Cap decimal(15,2),
----@County int,
@ModifiedBy nvarchar(50),<br />
@ModifiedOn datetime=getdate
AS
BEGIN
select '220' 'Col' -- Test statement
--Logic is here
END
But when I am running the stored procedure as below:
exec usp_Update_Service_Program_Detail @PK_Service_Program_County_RateCap_Detail= 53196434
, @Unit_Type=1
, @Rate_Cap=100
, @ModifiedBy='aaleemmo'
, @ModifiedOn=getdate
I am getting the following error:
Error converting data type nvarchar to datetime at @ModifiedOn=getdate
Why is it an error, when getdate returns datetime why should I convert it into Datetime again, when I try it, its giving me error. Can anybody please help me what is the way to execute it and I am getting similar problem from my C# code also, can anybody please help me in this regards.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks,
Abdul Aleem
"There is already enough hatred in the world lets spread love, compassion and affection."
|
|
|
|
|
indian143 wrote: @ModifiedOn datetime=getdate
Try GetDate()
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Abdul Aleem.
i find your error and please try this code.
create PROCEDURE [dbo].[usp_Update_Service_Program_Detail]
@PK_Service_Program_County_RateCap_Detail int,
@Unit_Type int,
@Rate_Cap decimal(15,2),
----@County int,
@ModifiedBy nvarchar(50),
@ModifiedOn datetime=getdate
AS
BEGIN
select '220' 'Col' -- Test statement
--Logic is here
END
exec usp_Update_Service_Program_Detail @PK_Service_Program_County_RateCap_Detail= 53196434, @Unit_Type=1
, @Rate_Cap=100
, @ModifiedBy='aaleemmo'
, @ModifiedOn=''
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have been given an already existing application to modify, there is a need to modify an existing Table in the Database also, so I added a new Table which has association of the old tables to create a many to many relationship with unique combination. Like for example if Unit Cost of a Service and Program was same for all Cities earlier now I have added a Table which has ServiceProgramCostId, CityId and Unit Cost, which is ServiceProgramCityCostId as PK.
Now the problem came with communication, I am trying to explain my manager that this same City impact will have in other tables as well, its better to create a combination for LineItemsServiceProgramCityCost instead of LineItemsServiceProgramCost and BusinessRulesServiceProgramCityCost instead of BusinessRulesServiceProgramCost as well, as they are now dependent upon the City.
The other thing is the Previous Developer was deleting the orphaned records from ServiceProgramCost table so with new Combination ServiceProgramCityCost I am not able to delete the records from LineItemsServiceProgramCost, BusinessRulesServiceProgramCost tables like earlier, because the deletion now means from BusinessRulesServiceProgramCityCost table, I am becoming nervous about deleting records from LineItemsServiceProgramCost, BusinessRulesServiceProgramCost tables.
My question is, is it not better to use the new city relationship in those two tables is better or is it better to go ahead with old approach but limiting the deletes? The previous developer who worked is just saying simple what's there? But not suggesting me or maybe saying with Manager that I am not able to work or something. Our Business Analyst is on maternity leave.
Any idea would be greatly helpful - thanks in advance.
Thanks,
Abdul Aleem
"There is already enough hatred in the world lets spread love, compassion and affection."
|
|
|
|
|
Hello,
I am working on a presentation on how developers could improve their relationship with their dbas. I am trying to receive as much feedback as possible. What is the biggest pet peeve(s) DBAs have with developers?
|
|
|
|
|
And you are asking this in a developer forum!
You might be better served trying SQL Server Central and the Oracle forums, you are going to get a higher DBA content there.
Personally I think we (developers) need to understand the restrictions under which a good DBA works.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
BBQ.
Not enough of it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Member 13200024 wrote: What is the biggest pet peeve(s) DBAs have with developers?
I don't know but I have never understood why there are problems. It really boils down to egos. A lot of people in this industry have too big of an ego and can't work well with other people.
I've been lucky enough to never work for such a big company that there were different roles like that. I've been lucky enough to always be a dba and a developer.
I have heard stories where developers do not have enough access to the DB so it makes it hard to do their job when they are always waiting on some dba to write code for them. But I'm not sure what complaints the dbas have about devs.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a little late, but here go some of my annoyances.
1) The sky is falling emails. Just because your application isn't working, doesn't mean the entire environment is down.
2) CCing everyone in management because you are having an issue...
3) Failure to plan, just because you failed to plan out a release doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
Not communicating releases and complaining when something doesn't work right.
[The DW team, loves to chew up 100s of gigs of space in a single release without communicating then screaming about when the drives fill up]
4) Trying to use the Database server as a File server, send mail server, or other random stuff. No, the database server is there to serve up data, not be some Swiss utility knife.
5) Not keeping in mind my time, and the totality of the environment. Please start out with where your problem is at.
I have 1700 databases spread across Dev, Test, PreProd and Production. No I don't just know where you are having an issue at, if I was psychic I would come up with the winning lotto numbers so I no longer need to work.
6) Security rules are not just setup randomly, they are often established by controls put in place by auditors.
I am accountable to those rules, so everyone needs to follow them.
Things like demanding SA rights to a db instance, no, there is nothing at the Database Server level you need to change. Things have been setup that way for a reason.
7) Not taking advice on a designs that are just terrible.
Just because it worked with 10 rows of data doesn't mean it will scale with 10M rows. Complaining about the server isn't going to solve your issue.
Setting aside the petty grips, a lot of the issues boil down to communication and a willingness to collaborate. My time gets stretched in a lot of directions, I go from meetings with network, server, dev, auditors, management, vendors and yes even end users. It’s not always possible for me to just drop everything to help someone out.
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
|
|
|
|
|
One computer can install multiple versions of Microsoft Visual Studio 2005, 2008, 2010, ... so SQL Server Management Studio can install multiple versions of 2005, 2008, ... the same computer ?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
You can do it, but since the latest is able to manage any database, I would not recommend installing several versions. Just install the latest one and you will be able to manage any MS SQL database.
"I'm neither for nor against, on the contrary." John Middle
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't the management studio also allow you to design solutions? Is that also backwards compatible in a way that one would feel comfortable deploying it?
|
|
|
|
|
SSMS will adapt itself to the version of the database it is connected to. Thus, you will not be able to setup something that would not be compatible with the database version you are working on.
I've been using this software for years now, and never had to worry installing several versions on a single computer.
That being said, you can easily test that latest version allows you to work on every database.
"I'm neither for nor against, on the contrary." John Middle
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but I see no real need for multiple versions of SSMS in itself.
That said, I still have the predecessors (SQL Enterprise Manager & SQL Query Analyzer, from SQL 2000) and its companion installed; I feel that Query Analyzer is a much lighter weight component for running queries
I am open to new ideas, though; as I have been using the in-development SQL Operations Studio which is a little heavier than SQL-QA, but not as bloated as SSMS
Director of Transmogrification Services
Shinobi of Query Language
Master of Yoda Conditional
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
