How would you create a database in Microsoft Access that is searchable only by certain fields and controlled by only a few (necessary) text boxes and check boxes on a form so it is easy to use - no difficult queries?
Example:
You have several text boxes and several corresponding check boxes on a form, and when the check box next to the text box is checked, the text box is enabled and you can then search by what is entered into said text box
(Actually I already know this, just playing stackoverflow jeopardy, where I ask a question I know the answer just to increase the world's coding knowledge! answer coming in about 5 mins)
My own solution is to add a "filter" control in the header part of the form for each of the columns I want to be able to filter on (usually all ...). Each time such a "filter" control is updated, a procedure will run to update the active filter of the form, using the "BuildCriteria" function available in Access VBA.
Thus, When I type "*cable*" in the "filter" at the top of the Purchase Order Description column, the "WHERE PODescription IS LIKE "*cable*" is automatically added to the MyForm.filter property ....
Some would object that filtering record source made of multiple underlying tables can become very tricky. That's right. So the best solution is according to me to always (I mean it!) use a flat table or a view ("SELECT" query in Access) as a record source for a form. This will make your life a lot easier!
Once you're convinced of this, you can even think of a small module that will automate the addition of "filter" controls and related procedures to your forms. You'll be on the right way for a real user-friendly client interface.
This is actually a pretty large topic, and fraught with all kinds of potential problems. Most intermediate to advanced books on Access will have some kind of section discussing "Query by Form," where you have an unbound form that allows the user to choose certain criteria, and that when executed, writes on-the-fly SQL to return the matching data.
In anything but a flat, single-table data structure, this is not a trivial task because the FROM clause of the SQL is dependent on the tables queried in the WHERE clause.
A few examples of some QBF forms from apps I've created for clients:
Querying 4 underlying tables
Querying a flat single table
Querying 3 underlying tables
Querying 6 underlying tables
Querying 2 underlying tables
The first one is driven by a class module that has properties that reflect the criteria selected in this form, and that has methods that write the FROM and WHERE clauses. This makes it extremely easy to add other fields (as long as those fields don't come from tables other than the ones already included).
The most complex part of the process is writing the FROM clause, as you have to have appropriate join types and include only the tables that are either in the SELECT clause or the WHERE clause. If you include anything else, you'll slow down your query a lot (especially if you have any outer joins).
But this is a big subject, and there is no magic bullet solution -- instead, something like this has to be created for each particular application. It's also important that you test it thoroughly with users, since what is completely clear and understandable to you, the developer, is often pretty darned mystifying to end users.
But that's a principle that doesn't just apply to QBF!
At start-up, you need to show a form and disable other menus etc. That way your user only ever sees your limited functionality and cannot directly open the tables etc.
This book excerpt, Real World Microsoft Access Database Protection and Security, should be enlightening.
For a question that vague, all that I can answer is open MS Access, and click the mouse a few times.
On second thought:
Use the "WhereCondition" argument of the "OpenForm" method
If the functionality is very limited and/or specialised then a SQL database is probably going to be overkill anyhow e.g. cache all combinations of the data locally, in memory even, and show one according to the checkboxes on the form. Previously you could have revoked permissions from the table and granted them only on VIEWs/PROCs that queried the data in the prescribed way, however security has been removed from MS Access 2007 so you can you now really stop users bypassing your simple app using, say, Excel and querying the data any way they like ...but then isn't that the point of an enterprise database? ;-)
Related
I feel that this should be a simple question, but I can't seem to find an answer anywhere.
I have an MS Access database where all the key fields have their proper key icon when I view the tables, but no relationships are defined. I need to create relationships between the "UnitID" key field for all the data tables. Some relationships are one-to-one and others are one-to-many (or one to none), but that doesn't matter, I don't need to enforce referential integrity. I just need to query the database, and worked with the query result tables, not add anything or change the data. All the UnitID fields have the same name.
Right now, I am just pulling up the relationship tab and dragging-and-dropping the names for each table, which takes forever. I can use the edit relationships icon that brings up a form, but it still needs to be re-opened for each table.
I am working with a government, publicly downloadable Access database. I realize Access isn't ideal, but that is the format it comes in and the program I'm am supposed to use for my job.
If there is a way to do it in the interface, that would be the best, since I can share it directly with others in my office who are unfamiliar with macros. But I have used VBA before for Excel and know some basic SQL. I've never used macros in Access, so I don't know what their capacities are; can this be done if there is no in-built functionality?
So are you talking about the Relationship Designer Window (Database Tools | Relationships menu option) in MS Access as pictured? With all the tables added, it takes about 5 seconds to click UnitID on one table, drag/drop to UnitID on another table and click Create. I guess it might take an hour or two to do them all?
Why must you have Relationships created at all? They don't define what Queries you can run. And if you don't need Referential Integrity, then I don't see much practical use for them anyhow.
If you can't get your Queries to run, then I would look elsewhere for the root of the problem.
By the way, once you get this problem solved, consider this: you may not need to actually create any Query result Tables if they are used as intermediate results. Since the result of a Query is a Table, then anywhere that the syntax mentions "Table", you can insert a Query. That is, Queries can be nested inside of other Queries. I mention this because you seem to be saying that you need a whole lot of result Tables, which in itself is going to get messy, not to mention that they will take up and lot of space and, worse, will be redundant and will have to recreated whenever your source Tables change (liable to be a maintenance nightmare).
I'm trying to figure out how to determine the best balance in structuring a database. I want to be able to store the information from several different forms submitted by different people, sometimes multiple times (such as a yearly update). I'm stuck between having a different table for each form, or a combination of form and element definition and element value tables.
Example A: There are three types of form with different information, so there are four tables, [FormA], [FormB], and [FormC] that each have the data associated with their respective forms, all FKed to [Customers].
Example B: Same three forms, but this time there are five different tables. [FormDescriptions] defines the form names, types, etc and has three entries, one for each form. [Forms] FKs to [Customers] and [FormDescriptions] and uses these in combination with the submission date to distinguish individual submissions. [FormElements] defines all the elements from the three forms, with a FK on FormDescriptions and a unique elementID. [ElementValues] FKs to [FormElements] and [Forms] and stores the value of the selected element on the selected form.
My question is, is one of these methods inherently better than the other, and if not, in which situations is each better than the other? As much why or why not that you want to include is appreciated.
"My question is, is one of these methods inherently better than the other, and if not, in which situations is each better than the other? As much why or why not that you want to include is appreciated."
Your option two is (your personalized variant of) the EAV antipattern. If you use this, and you expect (now or later) the system to do anything "intelligent" with the data, you'll find yourself in serious trouble. And things as basic as "rigorous data validation to catch data entry errors" already qualifies as "intelligent". So only use it if you can reasonably anticipate that the system will only be used for just merely storing the data, and that it will be unlikely for there ever to be a request to start processing/manipulating the data in "intelligent ways".
If you ever run into requests to start doing "intelligent" things with an EAV database, you'll find that whatever development time you thought you gained by working from a super duper generic information model, you'll lose orders of magnitude more time coding all the "intelligent" things required, i.e. reinstating the data structures in code that you refused to reflect in the DB.
Googling for "EAV antipattern" (try to locate the book by Bill Karwin) should provide you with more than enough info on why not to do it.
There are 2 factors in consideration here
Performance
flexibility
If your system is such that it will require you to add more forms in future frequently.. method 2 is better. You won't have to add additional tables or columns. Your forms are data driven. It will add little overhead for generating forms and saving as key value pairs.
On other hand if your system won't require many changes to forms first method can work.
Also consider usage of data after forms are submitted. Are you going to run analytics, reports on this data? Are these reports specific to forms? That will favor method 1.
After my first try to misappropriate Ms-Access - with your help - turned out to be a great success, I have been sent back to do "more of this".
A bit of introduction you can skip if you want:
I am building a data foundation about certain projects from which I want to create analysises and overviews.
The data and findings are to be represented in programs like Excel or Powerpoint, so the process itself is very open. It will probably be very visual with detailed points on request.
However, the data might be changing periodically and if this turns out well, I might repeat the process.
Therefore I think the ideal way would be to have a data layer, then a fixed set of queries on that data and then I would (semi-)manually compile the results into a report in whatever format fits, maybe using external data analysis tools such as R in between.
Trouble is, the only database I have access to is.. well.. Ms Access 2010. I am not at liberty to install anything on this machine.
I could of course use non-install or online tools if you have recommendations for this.
tl;dr: I want to use Ms Access to query data from a relational db into tabular format to be processed further by hand, using as little of Ms-Access VBA and forms as possible.
I have since started to implement a prototype in ms-Access, a standard relational database.
One interesting problem I have come up with with this kind of design is that I have a table for companies involved in the projects. Along with this, I have a table of "relationship" - like stakeholding, ownerships or cooperations.
So let's say company A is building project A, but is just a subsidary of company B, which then partly owned by company C and so on.
Now let's say I want to query all companies involved in a project, but as owners I just want to show the last "elements" of the chain.
Imagine I want to sort the list by net assets, which is usually a figure which is only available for the public companies at the end of the chain, not the project subsidaries up the chain etc.
Is this possible with (Ms-)SQL or would I need to do this in VBA?
Right now I think I could manage do write a VBA function and dump it into a temporary table, but then I'd have to create forms and such.
Another idea that immediately springs from this is ´to answer the question "In which project does company C have stake" by a query. You can see where this is going.
I would prefer the database and the queries to be as flexible as possible (and in this case, independend from the actual Access).
So this time, no mock-program or user-interface. It was a pain to get what I want from Access in the last project and that was with a very specific question set...
But in general I am also open to use different tools if I can.
Thank you so much!
Modelling hierarchies in an RDBMS is a fairly tricky process - some (like Oracle) have built-in functionality to query hierarchical data, but I don't think Access does.
The best solution is to use a "nested set" model. This allows you to model hierarchical data while using standard SQL; it's also pretty fast for querying.
If your data isn't hierarchical, the nested set isn't so useful; the typical solution in that case is to introduce a table to map the relationship - typically including the two related entities, and often with a "relationship type" field (e.g. "parent", "part owner" etc.). This is often called a Directed Acyclical Graph or DAG. There are several ways of modelling these in a database; a "Closure table" is probably the most efficient. This article shows how to do this - it's a heavy read, but I think it answers your question.
I'm having a problem with my students using multi-valued fields in access and getting confused about normalisation as a result.
Here is what I can make out. Given a 1-to-many relationship, e.g.
Articles Comments
-------- --------
artID{PK} commID{PK}
text text
artID{FK}
Access makes it possible to store this information into what appears to be one table, something like
Articles
--------
artID{PK}
text
comment
+ value
"value" referring to multiple comment values for the comment "column", which access actually stores as a separate table. The specifics of how the values are stored - table, its PK and FK - is completely hidden, but it is possible to query the multi-valued field, e.g. in the example above with the query
INSERT INTO article( [comment].Value )
VALUES ('thank you')
WHERE artID = 1;
But the query doesn't quite reveal the underlying structure of the hidden table implementing the multi-valued field.
Given this (disaster, in my view) - my problem is how to help newcomers to database design and normalisation understand what Access is offering them, why it may not be helpful, and that it is not a reason to ignore the basics of the relational model. More specifically:
Are there better ways, besides queries as above, to reveal the structure behind multi-valued fields?
Are there good examples of where the multi-valued field is not good enough, and shows the advantage of normalising explicitly?
Are there straightforward ways to obtain the multi-select visual output of Access multi-values, but based on separate, explicit tables?
Thanks!
I cannot give you advice in using this feature, because I never used it; however, I can give you reasons not to use it.
I want to have full control on what I'm doing. This is not the case for multi-valued fields, therefore I don't use them.
This feature is not expandable. What if you want to add a date field to your comments, for instance?
It is sometimes necessary to upsize an Access (backend) database to a "big" database (SQL Server, Oracle). These Databases don't offer such a feature. It is often the customer who decides which database has to be used. Recently I had to migrate an Access application (frontend) using an Oracle backend to a SQL-Server backend because my client decided to drop his Oracle server. Therefore it is a good idea to restrict yourself to use only common features.
For common tasks like editing lookup tables I created generic forms. My existing solutions will not work with multi-valued fields.
I have a (self-made) tool that synchronizes changes in the structure of the database on my developer’s site with the database on the client’s site. This tool cannot deal with multi-valued fields.
I have tools for the security management that can grant SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE rights on tables or revoke them. Again, the management tool does not work with multi-valued fields.
Having a separate table for the comments allows you to quickly inspect all the comments (by opening the table). You cannot do this with multi-valued fields.
You will not see the 1 to n relation between the articles and the comments in a database diagram.
With a separate table you can choose whether you want to cascade deletes to the details table or not. If you don't, you will not be able to delete an article as long as there are comments attached to it. This can be desirable, if you want to protect the comments from being deleted inadvertently.
It is important to realize the difference between physical and logical relationships. Today the whole internet and web services (SOAP) quite much realizes on a data format that is multi-value in nature.
When you represent multi-value data with a relational database (such as Access), then behind the scenes you are using a traditional (and legitimate) relation. I cannot stress that as such, then the use of multi-value columns in Access is in fact a LEGITIMATE relational model.
The fact that table is not exposed does not negate this issue. In fact, if you represent an invoice (master record, and repeating details) as a XML data cube, then we see two things:
1) you can build and represent that invoice with a relational database like Access
2) such a relational data model that is normalized can ALSO be represented as a SINGLE xml string.
3) deleting the XML record (or string) means that cascade delete of the child rows (invoice details) MUST occur.
So while it is true that Multi-Value fields been added to Access to deal with SharePoint, it is MOST important to realize that such data can be mapped to a relational database (if you could not do this, then Access could not consume that XML data using relational database tables as ACCESS CURRENTLY DOES RIGHT NOW).
And with the web such as XML, and SharePoint then the need to consume and manage and utilize such data is not only widespread, but is in fact a basic staple of the internet.
As more and more data becomes of a complex nature, we find the requirement for multi-value data exploding in use. Anyone who used that so called "fad" the internet is thus relying and using data that is in fact VERY OFTEN XML and is multi-value (complex) in nature.
As long as the logical (not physical) relational data model is kept, then use of multi-value columns to represent such data is possible and this is exactly what Access is doing (it is mapping the relational data model to a complex model). Note that the complex (xml) data model does NOT necessary have to be relational in nature. However, if you ARE going to map such data to Access then the complex multi-value model MUST CONFORM TO A RELATIONAL data model.
This is EXACTLY what is occurring in Access.
The fact that such a correct and legitimate math relational model is not exposed is of little issue here. Are we to suggest that because Excel does not expose the binary codes used then users will never learn about computers? Or perhaps we all must program in assembler so we all correctly learn how computers works.
At the end of the day, who cares and why does this matter? The fact that people drive automatic cars today does not toss out the concept that they are using different gears to operate that car. The idea that we shut down all of society because someone is going to drive an automatic car or in this case use complex data would be galactic stupid on our part.
So keep in mind that extensions to SQL do exist in Access to query the multi-value data, but as well pointed out here those underlying tables are not exposed. However, as noted, exposing such tables would STILL REQUIRE one to not change or mess with cascade delete since that feature is required TO MAINTAIN A INTERSECTION OF FEATURES and a CORRECT MATH relational model between the complex data model (xml) and that of using two related tables to represent such data.
In other words, you can use related tables to represent the complex data model IF YOU REMOVE the ability of users to play with the referential integrity options. The RI options MUST remain as set in those hidden tables else such data will not be able to make the trip BACK to the XML or complex data model of which it was consumed from.
As noted, in regards to users being taught how gasoline reacts with oxygen for that of learning to drive a car, or using a word processor and being forced to learn a relational model and expose the underlying tables makes little sense here.
However, the points made here in regards to such tables being exposed are legitimate concerns.
The REAL problem is SQL server and Oracle etc. cannot consume or represent that complex data WHILE ACCESS CAN CONSUME such data.
As noted, the complex data ship has LONG ago sailed! XML, soap, and the basic technologies of the internet are based on this complex data model.
In effect, SQL server, Oracle and most databases cannot that consume this multi-value data represent it without users having to create and model such data in a relational fashion is a BIG shortcoming of SQL server etc.
Access stands alone in this ability to consume this data.
So, for anyone who used a smartphone, iPad or the web, you are using basic technologies that are built around using complex data, something that Access now allows.
It is likely that the rest of the industry will have to follow suit given that more and more data is complex in nature. If the database industry does not change, then the mainstream traditional relational database system will NOT be the resting place of such data.
A trend away from storing data in related tables is occurring at a rapid pace right now and products like SharePoint, or even Google docs is proof of this concept. So Access is only reacting to market pressures and it is likely that other database vendors will have to follow suit or simply give up on being part of the "fad" called the internet.
XML and complex data structures are STAPLE and fact of our industry right now – this is not an issue we all should run away from, but in fact embrace.
Albert D. Kallal (Access MVP)
Edmonton, Alberta Canada
kallal#msn.com
The technical discussion is interesting. I think the real problem lies in student understanding. Because it is available in Access students will use it, and initially it will probably provide a simple solution to some design problems. The negatives will occur later when they try and use the data. Maybe a simple example demonstrating the problems would persuade some students to avoid using multi-valued fields ? Maybe an example of storing the data in another, more usable format would help ?
Good luck !
Peter Bullard
MS Access does a great job of simplifying database management and abstracting out a lot of complexity. This however makes the learning of dbms concepts a bit difficult. Have you tried using other 'standard' dbms tools like MySQL (or even sqlite). From a learning perspective they may be better.
I know this post is old. But, it's not quite the same as every other post I've seen on this topic. This one has someone making a good case for using Multi Valued Fields...
As someone who is trying who is still trying very hard to get their head around Access, I find the discussion for and against using the Multi Valued Fields incredibly frustrating.
I'm trying to sort through it all, but if everyone is so against them, what is an alternative method? It seems that in every search result I find everyone is either telling you how to use Multi Valued Fields and Controls or telling you how horrible and what a mistake they are. Many people refer to an alternative to them, but nobody says "Here's an example". I'm here to learn about these things. And while I know that this is a simpler concept for a lot of people in these forums, I could really use some examples to take a look at.
I'm at a point where I have to decide which way to go. It would be wonderful to compare examples of using Multi Valued Fields and alternatives and using a control to select multiple values.
Or am I wrong and the functionality of a combobox where you can select multiple items is only available through Access?
I want to address the last of your questions first. There is a way of providing a visual presentation of a parent child relationship. It's called subforms. If you get help about subforms in Access, it will explain the concept.
I have used subforms in a project where I wanted to display the transaction header in a form and the transaction details in a subform. There is nothing to hinder this construct even when the data is stored in two normalized tables.
Of course, this affects the screen, not the database. That's the whole point. Normalization is relevant to storage and retrieval, not to other uses of data.
Is there a quick and easy way to make a VB.NET user interface for managing the data in a normalized DataSet?
I know that is a very subjective question, so let me explain. For a brief period early in my career, I used to create user interfaces in Microsoft Access. I developed a simple, but very effective approach to user interface design. Here are some details of that approach:
Create one form per table. Put on
each form all controls necessary to
completely manage one row in the
table.
Use combo boxes for
foreign-key columns.
Give the user a
standard way to add rows and delete
rows.
Use Apply and Undo buttons.
Let
the user navigate from one row to
another with a list box.
Provide a
search box and filter options for
more efficient navigation.
Let the
user double-click on controls
representing foreign-key columns to
quickly navigate from one form to
another.
Make the state of each form
persistent (so the user always
returns to the last navigation point)
etc.
Simple, right? I found that Access encouraged this approach. It has many built-in features that make this kind of UI easy. For instance, creating a combo box to represent a foreign key relationship takes about 10 seconds.
Well, I haven't worked in Access for a while. A couple of years ago, however, I was hired to write an application in VB.NET on the NET 2.0 framework. To get a data management user interface up and running quickly, I used my Access experience to write a quick & easy prototype in Access -- that took me about one week. Then I hired a programmer to implement that same UI in VB.NET. What a nightmare! We've been working on that implementation for a year, and I'm still very unsatisfied with the results. Some of the problems we are having:
Apply and Undo buttons don't work quite right. We can't find an event that tells us when the form is "dirty" (thus making Apply and Undo relevant).
Navigation from row to row and from form to form requires surprisingly complicated code. I get the impression that we are fighting against NET's binding features, not working with them the way they were intended to be used.
The NET controls seem buggy. For instance, when the user types a value into a combo box (as opposed to choosing it from the drop down), it doesn't trigger the SelectedValueChanged event.
We seem to be repeating a lot of information. For instance, the DataSet knows there is a relationship between the columns in two tables, but we must nevertheless effectively repeat the details of that relationship when we program the combo boxes, binding, navigtation features, etc.
We still don't have good solutions for the filter and search features. There are lots of little details to work out. (For instance, what if you choose a filter that doesn't include the currently displayed row?)
We are writing many helper functions and classes to simplify the work, and I can't figure out why that effort hasn't already been done by others -- I'm certain we are reinventing the wheel.
etc.
By themselves, none of the above are a big deal -- there are effective solutions to each one. Taken together, however, these problems are making my UI development go much slower than expected.
In an ideal world, I should be able to create a small amount of code relevant to my specific data model (for instance, one user control per table establishing the layout and logic relevant to the rows in that table) then integrate that code into a template which interprets the data model and handles everything else -- navigation, adding and deleting, apply and undo, search and filter, etc.
Thus, my question: Is there anything out there which makes this type of UI development easier?
I've searched the web for various combinations of "generic forms", "UI templates", "data managment forms", etc., but I haven't found anything on topic. Perhaps I just don't know the buzzwords. Is there a specific name for this type of UI development task?
Create UCs for each table. Drop a grid control onto the UC and bind it to the tables dataset using VS's wizard. Select the options that allow for insert, update, delete. Each row on the grid will have those buttons/actions automatically added for you.