AnsweredAssumed Answered

Many tables vs. just two tables dilemma

Question asked by happychap on Jul 29, 2010
Latest reply on Jul 30, 2010 by RickWhitelaw


Many tables vs. just two tables dilemma



Here's the situation.  I have two tables: "Students" is just basic info on the student.  "Records" has 100+ fields, since there are many types of records: observation records, phone call records, etc.  The two are related by Student_Name (validated as unique value).

What works: (1) I have a button in each record that will take me to the appropriate layout for the type of record. (2) I can generate a report that outlines a student's whole record history, regardless of record type, in chronological order.  I need this functionality. 

My question: I wonder if I'd rather have my various types of records have their own dedicated tables? It seems like it would make navigating/editing/scripting/creating new types of records easier. 

BUT, I don't want to lose my treasured chronological report of all records, regardless of type.  How hard would it be to get a report that listed records in chronological order from various tables? Would I use lookups and have a "reports" table? Maybe that would be more trouble than it is worth? 

I know there is something about using TO's here, but for the life of me I can't figure out how splitting it up into TOs really helps, or even how to do that...I have tried to read the TO article posted up here before and it is a bit, um, abstract. 

Many thanks in advance,