E
E.Q.
Very new to access.
I've set up Excel sheets to use as e-logs where I work. I've decided to
move them to Access after too many accidents in Excel. (I like the idea I've
seen in this site of not letting users have direct contact with data
tables...)
We have five Excel files currently used as e-logs. Three by the shift
operators, one for the control room, and one for the shift supervisors. All
have the same basic structure. Used the wizard to import and analyze sheet
and it nicely created three tables for each log. (One to identify the user,
one to identify the "areas" - a two field list of dependent keywords, and one
eight-field table for the log itself.)
In general, I could use the exact same field names for all tables. Further,
the control room and supervisors could use identical values to populate all
cbo's while the individual operator area e-logs could use subsets of those
used by the supervisor and control room.
I and my fellow supervisors tend to fill out our most of the Excel sheet
by simply cutting and pasting the entries from the other logs, with only a
couple entries that are unique to for our position.
As I first considered switching I thought I'd create five seperate mdb
files. But now I'm thinking that that would not be very efficient. But now
I'm trying to decide how best to lump or split the tables. If I leave them
split it might be easier to adjust for greater specialization later. But I
could go so far as to lump everything into three tables and have the full
functionality of the Excel sheets along with the benefits of Access. (The
"Area" keywords would provide the context as to what part of the plant it
pertained to.)
Is there a rule of thumb such as "always split" or "always lump"? My
thought is that I'd create one mdb file with five seperate log tables then
try the database splitter wizard to try to set it up for multiple users. (At
most there would be 10 users logged in to the system. Usually there'd be no
more than five.) Am I missing anything by using this approach?
I've set up Excel sheets to use as e-logs where I work. I've decided to
move them to Access after too many accidents in Excel. (I like the idea I've
seen in this site of not letting users have direct contact with data
tables...)
We have five Excel files currently used as e-logs. Three by the shift
operators, one for the control room, and one for the shift supervisors. All
have the same basic structure. Used the wizard to import and analyze sheet
and it nicely created three tables for each log. (One to identify the user,
one to identify the "areas" - a two field list of dependent keywords, and one
eight-field table for the log itself.)
In general, I could use the exact same field names for all tables. Further,
the control room and supervisors could use identical values to populate all
cbo's while the individual operator area e-logs could use subsets of those
used by the supervisor and control room.
I and my fellow supervisors tend to fill out our most of the Excel sheet
by simply cutting and pasting the entries from the other logs, with only a
couple entries that are unique to for our position.
As I first considered switching I thought I'd create five seperate mdb
files. But now I'm thinking that that would not be very efficient. But now
I'm trying to decide how best to lump or split the tables. If I leave them
split it might be easier to adjust for greater specialization later. But I
could go so far as to lump everything into three tables and have the full
functionality of the Excel sheets along with the benefits of Access. (The
"Area" keywords would provide the context as to what part of the plant it
pertained to.)
Is there a rule of thumb such as "always split" or "always lump"? My
thought is that I'd create one mdb file with five seperate log tables then
try the database splitter wizard to try to set it up for multiple users. (At
most there would be 10 users logged in to the system. Usually there'd be no
more than five.) Am I missing anything by using this approach?