I have a project that is a clinical web based system, I need to save some sheet data in SQL database.
I have "TumorSite" table, by this table I show checkboxes that user can select one or more of them in MVC 5.
I also have "PathologyReport" table, I wanna to save all of the data about pathological data of a patient into it.
Some fields in "PathologyReport" should be complete from checkboxes that checked, some not and fill from textboxes. For checkboxes, if the user checks "other" another value should b saved.
How to fill multiple checkbox values for a patient? Do I need another table?
How to link "PathologyReport" to the new table?
What should I write in the controller in mvc?
please see my form.
Yes, you usually need another table for that. Some SQL databases allow an "array" data type for columns (e.g. Oracle), but the usual approach is another table with a foreign key.
Related
I’ve hit sort of a roadblock in a current project I’m working on, I don’t have a lot of web developers in my office and as a matter in fact the only other web dev just went on vacation. Anyway I was wondering if anyone could help me with structuring two of my postgres tables.
The user needs to be able to create custom data tables, one for each specific program (a parent record). The form I’ve setup for these tables allows you to add or remove inputs based on how many fields you need and then specify the name, data_type, etc.
My initial idea was to create a new table in the dB each time a user created one of these custom tables. The other web dev, who has created something similar, said it would be better to create a fields table that stores each custom field information and then have a data table that stores every cell of data tying to a field id.
I understand having the fields table so that I can retrieve just the field information and build my front-end tables and edit forms dynamically, but I’m a little confused on how to get the data into the table. I’m used to having an array of objects and each object relating to an entire row. But with this method it’s storing each cell of data instead of row of data and I don’t know the best way to select and organize it on the backend.
Data for these tables are going to be imported in from CSV files formatted to the custom table structure, below is the current structure I have for my two tables. I got a suggestion on reddit to use JSON to store each rows data, but I'm wondering how I'll be able to do sorting and filtering with this data. My current table structure is listed below, and this is before I got the suggestion to use the json data. I'm guessing if I went that route I would remove the fieldId column and instead use it for
the JSON key name, and store that fields data with it.
fields
id -- name -- program_id -- type -- required -- position -- createdAt -- updatedAt
data
id -- fieldId -- data -- createdAt -- updatedAt
So I guess my question is does this sound like the right way to structure these tables for my needs and if so can I still perform sorting and filtering on it?
I have a sub form tied to a table. This table has a foreign key, which holds the key to different tables, depending on the value. Based on the value, the information in the record is tied to a certain object level in the schema. It may be tied to the main record based on the main entry form. It may be tied to another subform record, etc.
So let's say the main form is for projects. For each project they could be placed into many buildings. Within each building they may have multiple staff. This somewhat inter-dependent sub form is for project documents. They may relate to the current project. They can also relate to one of the buildings for the current project, but only for that current project. Or the document could relate to one of the buildings, but for all projects. I already have a combo that gets it's row source based on the relationship type/doc type combo that is chosen first. That let's the user choose the actual building, staff or whatever the doc is related to.
I need to create a filter for the sub form that will give all records related to that main record and/or it's sub records, and still be able to add new records. I've been looking at a case statement, but concerned that will only apply the first true case. I was thinking of a union, but guessing I won't be able to add records. It won't be updateable.
Any suggestions appreciated!
Thanks. I ended up creating 2 sub forms. One for viewing all records that are somehow tied to the main record. This has a record source set to a union view, with a where clause for the main record ID. The second form is for adding/editing new records and the record source is tied to the documents table, with a filter to the record being edited, or the data entry set to yes, for adding new records. This is all set based on a toggle button, new main record activity, etc.
Currently I'm performing a migration from a microsoft access database to an SQL Express 2010 database.
Basically, I have an Access application that searches a customer database. The access app is developed in 2 parts. An access front end on each client called application.mdb and a data backend on a windows 2008 server called data.mdb. The application.mdb has 3 linked tables to data.mdb. which holds customers and contracts and items. The customer table relates to the contracts table (one to many) and the contracts table relates to the items table (one to many)
I imported the tables from the data.mdb into the sql tables by the same name and created the same relationships and configured them to cascade. I then created an obdc connection on the clients and updated the 3 linked tables in application.mdb to point to the tables on the sql server.
I start the application and everything seemed to work great, I can see all the data perfectly and the performance increase was well worth the effort.
Then I found a problem, when I add a new customer to the database it autonumbers the customer table and the contracts table but not the items table.... Thus if I attempt to alters any of the items in the items table for new customers I can not. I get the following error "cannot add record(s); primary key for table "items" not in recordset" which makes sense because SQL had not autonumbered the items table.
I can't understand why....
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Well, just manually adding record direct in the items view should tell you if the autonumber is working. You MUST get the autonumber working when you edit + use in direct table view.
As always these kinds of issues comes down to the details. One thing that's different when using a SQL based backend compared for access applications is the generation of auto numbers (primary key) does not occur on server based systems until record is actually saved. When working with the jet based back end, the auto number is available the instant the record is dirtied.
So I would check if you have some type of code or event running in the application that is attempting to use as primary key value before the record been actually saved.
Usually access does a pretty good job. For example when you build a form in access, and then have a sub form in access to edit child records (and a child table), then as a rule when the focus switches from a main form to a sub form, access will force a save of the main record. This thus means the primary key (auto number column) is now available for correct functioning of the relationship. Access can and will use this PK value and insert this value into the foreign key value column in this child table for you.
However access will only do above for you WHEN you correctly set up the link master and link child settings in the sub form control. As a general rule when building forms in regular access, Access can detect the settings required and insert the correct values into the link master and link child settings for you. However, the detection of the FK column will not occur with linked tables.
So when you use SQL server, you have to edit and set these values manually in the sub form control. So I would check your link master and link child settings in the sub form you're using to edit this data, and ensure that the correct values are set. If this is VBA code, then ensure the record is actually saved before attempt to use and grab a PK value.
I should point out that even in non SQL server based applications, it is the setting up of the link master + child settings in the sub form that allows access to setup and maintain this foreign key value for you. So access is always had the ability to insert these values for you, and it'll do so with you about having to write any code at all. So during the editing process to insert and maintain these values Access does all of the work for you (so it's not the data engine that inserts these FK values for you, but the user interface or in some cases code you write)
So access will not setup and insert these correct values unless you set up the link master + child settings in that sub form control.
I would simply check if your link master and child master settings are correct in any sub form control you are using here.
This sounds like a stupid answer but check the Items table to be sure that auto-numbering is turned on.
One of the things I would suggest whenever you migrate a Jet/ACE database to SQL Server is to thoroughly review the database design, e.g.: the implementation of keys and constraints, choice of data types, choice of indexes, etc. Jet/ACE is a very different thing to most SQL DBMSs so you shouldn't assume that a database design that worked well for Jet/ACE is automatically suitable for a SQL DBMS. Upsizing wizards won't always identify every possible issue.
In SQL Server the nearest equivalent of an "auto-number" is the IDENTITY property. Check to be sure which columns are IDENTITY in your tables and create an IDENTITY column if you need one.
I need to develop a front end to a MSSQL database just to modify a few tables. I decided to use Access 2003 simply because of time restraints.
I used Linked Tables over ODBC to get them into Access, I'm designing the forms but I'm having problems creating an interface to allow users to create and delete new association between entities.
My Database structure is:
product
# productcode
- name
product_part
* productcode
* partnumber
- position
part
# partnumber
- comment
There is a many-to-many relationship between product and part (a product can have many parts and a part can belong to many products) except I can't find any easy way to allow a user to just associate a new part to product, only view the existing ones.
I've defined the relationships in Access except the options for cardinality and referential integrity are greyed out, I'm assuming this is because they're linked tables? Not sure if this would affect anything.
I created a form for product with an embedded subform which lists all the associated parts and their position (position is an attribute of the relationship since it's contextual but I can spin this out into it's own table if it'll make things easier).
Basically I need to make an user interface mechanism which will associate a selected part from a list to the shown product or any other way to create new and delete existing associations flexibly. I would have thought Access would have something in some wizard somewhere to do this, but if it does I can't find it.
Any help would be appreciated.
Judging on what noted so far, then this should be a simple matter to have the main form based on your topmost table (product). The continues sub form should then be based on ONLY the product part table.
If you think about this, the third table is really only a lookup table there for your convenience to allow you to not have to type in manually type in the part number.
So, base the child sub form as a continuous form, and make that column for part number a combo box that looks up the part numbers from the third table (part). So this combo boss can search and display by description, but will in fact automatically store the part number in that colum for you.
So while there's no need for any types of wizards, you certainly do not have to write any type of code whatsoever. Just ensure that the master child link settings for the sub form are set up correctly, and access will thus insert and maintain The product code columns used to link back to the main product table. You can most certainly use the combo box wizard to create the combo box in the continuous sub form that you're going to use to Select what part and set the part number column from the parts table.
The result will be a form that allows you to add new part assemblies or edit existing. While access will maintain the product code column for you, if you delete a main record, you'll need to have setup referential integrity and cascade deletes on the back end database part. So as you correctly note, all the integrity features will be set up in the database back end, not in the access front end part.
I've discovered what I wanted to do isn't easily possible using Linked Tables, I was able to do what I wanted to do easily if I used native access tables (since it let me properly define the relationships) but I couldn't do that with linked tables.
The user wants to add new fields in UI dynamically. This new field should get stored in database and they should be allowed to perform CRUD on it.
Now I can do this by specifying a XML but I wanted a better way where these new columns are searchable. Also the idea of firing ALTER statement and adding a new column seems wrong.
Can anyone help me with a design pattern on database server side of how to solve this problem?
This can be approached using a key value system. You create a table with the primary key column(s) of the table you want to annotate, a column for the name of the attribute, and a column for its value. When you user wants to add an attribute (say height) to the record of person 123 you add a row to the new table with the values (123, 'HEIGHT', '140.5').
In general you cast the values to TEXT for storage but if you know all the attributes will be numeric you can choose a different type for the value column. You can also (not recommended) use several different value columns depending on the type of the data.
This technique has the advantage that you don't need to modify the database structure to add new attributes and attributes are only stored for those records that have them. The disadvantage is that querying is not as straightforward as if the columns were all in the main data table.
There is no reason why a qualified business user should not be allowed to add a column to a table. It is less likely to cause a problem than just about anything else you can imagine including adding a new row to a table or changing. the value of a data element.
Using either of the methods described above do not avoid any risk; they are simply throwbacks to COBOL filler fields or unnecessary embellishments of the database function. The result can still be unnormalized and inaccurate.
These same business persons add columns to spreadsheets and tables to Word documents without DBAs getting in their way.
Of course, just adding the column is the smallest part of getting an information system to work, but it is often the case that it is perceived to be an almost insurmountable barrier. It is in fact 5 min worth of work assuming you know where to put it. Adding a column to the proper table with the proper datatype is easy to do, easy to use, and has the best chance of encouraging data quality.
Find out what the maximum number of user-added fields will be and add them before hand. For example 'User1', 'User2', 'User3', 'User4'...etc. You can then enable the fields on the UI based on some configurable settings.