New to access, am I doing this right.

[thusgaard]

Hi

Hi I'm working on a database to ease my job, when I need to move 500 servers in the near future. I'm rather new new with databases, so please excuse any mistakes I make and help me by to get better.

I have created a DB with 3 tables, Info, Current and Future.

Info: Contains fields that tell me about the server name, the owner and what is going to be done for this particular server

Current: Contains the current placement of the server and how it has cables running to it.

Future: Contains the future placement and cables running to it, including patches.

I have the following fields:
INFO: Id (primary), Servername, Model, owner, procedure to follow, mail sent, mail recived, change number.

Current: Id (primary), INFO (has relation to Id of INFO, one to one), Room, Rack, NIC1, NIC2, NIC3, NIC4, ILO, Fiber1, Fiber2, Power



Future ID: Id (primary), INFO (has relation to Id of INFO, one to one), Room, Rack, Unit, NIC1, Patch1, X1, NIC2, Patch2, X2, NIC3, Patch3, X3, NIC4, Patch4, X4, ILO, Patch ILO, XILO, Fiber1, Fiber2, Power

Does this look right or am I making any obvious mistakes?

J;-)

[June7]

Having similar named fields like NIC1, NIC2, NIC3, NIC4 is a sign that data structure is not fully normalized. But that might not be bad. Will all of these fields always have data for all records? You have to decide how far down to take normalizing. While a child table of records for NIC values might make data entry seem more complex, data manipulation might be easier. I have some tables that have similar name fields which works fine for most of my data output and data entry is easy and since I don't do any sorting/filtering on the data in those fields, I am satisfied with it.

Either way, there are methods to deal with the data structure for virtually any output arrangement needed.

[thusgaard]

Hi

am I to understand it like this.

Due to normalization having fields with similar names is bad. This is easily corrected. And with this ready I can start entering data. Also I can go to the Form Forum and get help making an entry form.

Thank you very much

J;-)

[orange]

As June7 has pointed out -- with field names like NIC1, NIC2... there may be some normalization issues -- but that might not be a problem. I recognize you could have multiple NICs in a machine.

However, they key question for you is:

Do you have some test records and, if so, does your set up give you the info you need? If your set up gives you the info you need to do the job, GREAT.
If not, then adjust the set up until you get what you need.

[thusgaard]

Orange/June7:

I have test records, I have already moved 100 servers, organized in a Excel workbook, not bad but not perfect. I'll have to check once again if I have everything in the DB.

I have edited my tables to look like this:

INFO: Id (primary), Servername, Model, owner, procedure to follow, mail sent, mail recived, change number.

Current: Id (primary), OldINFOid (has relation to Id of INFO, one to one), OldRoom, OldRack, OldNIC1, OldNIC2, OldNIC3, OldNIC4, OldILO, OldFiber1, OldFiber2, OldPower

Future ID: Id (primary), INFOid (has relation to Id of INFO, one to one), Room, Rack, Unit, NIC1, Patch1, X1, NIC2, Patch2, X2, NIC3, Patch3, X3, NIC4, Patch4, X4, ILO, Patch ILO, XILO, Fiber1, Fiber2, Power.


J;-)