Prev: How big a record size is too big from a performance standpoint
Next: Collecting form data offline
From: Gina Whipp on 1 Dec 2009 10:15
<smile>

--
Gina Whipp

"I feel I have been denied critical, need to know, information!" - Tremors
II

http://www.regina-whipp.com/index_files/TipList.htm

"Keith Wilby" <here(a)there.com> wrote in message
news:4b14d905$1_1(a)glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> "Gina Whipp" <NotInterested(a)InViruses.com> wrote in message
> news:uSEs8XicKHA.4724(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>> You are looking for a reason to argue and I was simply answering a post.
>>
>>
>
> Don't try to engage in a battle of wits with an un-armed opponent.


From: dsmith via AccessMonster.com on 5 Dec 2009 17:13
Thanks guys,
I finally got it working...I appreciate your willingness to help those of us
trying to learn. Access is a great program...hopefully I will learn enough to
share in the future.

Arno R wrote:
>> Firstly, the OP's tables are correctly designed. Why would you recommend he look at a
>> survey database? Secondly, you said "You will need a *joiner* table. Again, the OP's
>> tables are correctly designed. He doesn't need any more tables!!! Your recommendation
>> was completely erroneous and would only serve to confuse the OP further.
>
>Hi $teve, why are you constantly making a fool of yourself ??
>Simply put: Gina is right and you are not... You are acting very childish *again*
>Also: You are simply not understanding the question and/or not reading properly...
>(as usual)
>
>OP asked
>"Should I have an ObserverID fk in tblQuestion since each observer must address all 20 questions with each observation?"
>The answer has been given by Gina..
>"no you shouls not have ObserverID in tblQuestion"
>This is a correct answer while you state that it is wrong...! (only typo there)
>
>The OP tells us: "Supervisors will observe procedures and mark them as "safe" or "at-risk"
>So we need a *joiner* table to collect these observations. Gina is right on this...
>This *joiner* is your proposed TblLocationObservation I guess.
>
>BUT:
>The OP's tables (you mean yours??) are *not* quite right...
>The proposed table TblObservation as such is completely *nonsense*!
>You are storing *what* here?? Date and Observer... Related to what ??
>You are missing Location??
>
>Maybe the ObservationDate from TblObservation easily be stored in the table TblLocationObservation.
>Also things like ObservationTime and such...
>Well to be honest... it depends on whether we need the day-time per procedure that we check....
>But we definitely don't need the tblObservation as you proposed....
>confusing and erroneous indeed....
>
>To the OP:
>==> I would consider each and every answer given by $teve as 'At-Risk'
>==> I would consider each and every answer given by Gina's as "Safe"
>
>Also I would try to give *meaningful* names to the fields.
>That can be very helpful to 'understand' the information we are gathering.
>
>The supposed fieldname 'LocationObservation' does indeed serve to confuse...
>Why not use ProcedureObservation instead ?
>
>Regards, Arno R

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: How big a record size is too big from a performance standpoint
Next: Collecting form data offline