G
Guest
So it isn't the data entry, it is the fact that you can change one record
instead of many. Now that you have explained it that way, it is a lot clearer
to me. It didn't get through to me at first, thanks.
That is the answer I *think* I was looking for to my original question ...
I say *think* because, in my current design, course type and course name
will be taken from look up tables.
Couple of points:
Instructor name *is* independent of course name and is taken from a query
based on whether an employee is also an instructor (but it also excludes the
current main record since an employee can't instruct themselves LoL). Based
on that, it could be helpful to have an extra 1:n relationship between course
and the valid list of instructors. what do you think?
The second point is that training may not have a regular timetable (like
some major companies that have external training courses).
I have designed another database which should have a m:m relationship but
doesn't. I will redo the tables because I have information.
thanks!
instead of many. Now that you have explained it that way, it is a lot clearer
to me. It didn't get through to me at first, thanks.
That is the answer I *think* I was looking for to my original question ...
I say *think* because, in my current design, course type and course name
will be taken from look up tables.
Couple of points:
Instructor name *is* independent of course name and is taken from a query
based on whether an employee is also an instructor (but it also excludes the
current main record since an employee can't instruct themselves LoL). Based
on that, it could be helpful to have an extra 1:n relationship between course
and the valid list of instructors. what do you think?
The second point is that training may not have a regular timetable (like
some major companies that have external training courses).
I have designed another database which should have a m:m relationship but
doesn't. I will redo the tables because I have information.
thanks!