Re: Replication

The Quote table itself wouldn't hold much info (Date, salesman, client, job site info...,around 15 fields), but I don't see how I could get away from duplicating everything that would cascade from a particular quote number, as I don't know which of the child records he would want to add/delete/edit. In your example there would be many items, which would have to be duplicated, but in certain situations (mine included) each item could have many child records etc. In theory, that's a lot of duplication. Though in my situation, there's not a great amount of actual data being stored.

Graham

"David Kerber" <ns_dkerber_at_ids.net> wrote in message news:3CF3DC2E.77042956_at_ids.net...
> How much data are you storing in the quote record itself? If it's just
> pointers to customer ID's, with the customer details stored in a
> different table, there's not much data being duplicated. Maintaining
> the pointers to the child records is a bit more work, but if you break
> up your quote info a bit more, you can handle it:
>
> tblQuotes
> QuoteID AutoInc
> QuoteNum String (Your 1001-1, 1001-2, etc)
> SalesPerson Long
> ...
> Other info as needed
>
>
> tblQuoteDetails
> QuoteID Long
> ItemID Long
> Qty Integer
> QuotedPrice Currency
> ...
> Other info.
>
> (with one record for each item on each quote)
>
>
>
> Graham Bellamy wrote:
> >
> > "David Kerber" <ns_dkerber_at_ids.net> wrote in message news:3CF3B054.BD51137B_at_ids.net...
> > > Another way to handle this might be to add a field to your quotes table
> > > called something like Previous_Ver which contains just the pkey
> > > reference to the previous version of this particular quote number.
> > > Then you can walk the tree of previous_ver values from the most recent
> > > to the original version of the quote, no matter how many revs it goes
> > > through.
> >
> > Thanks. I think this should be able to be done with both methods I mentioned
(1001,1007 &
> > 1001-1, 1001-2).
> >
> > Any comments about the duplication of the entire record (and all its related child
> > records)?
> > In appreciation,
> > Graham
>
> --
>
> Dave Kerber
> Edit the return address by removing the ns_ before e-mailing
>
> This message was entirely written using recycled electrons.
>
> REAL programmers write self-modifying code, leading to:
> Why there is ALWAYS one more bug (courtesy of O.D. Williams):
> 1. Debuging code is always much harder than writing it.
> 2. Therefore, if your code is as clever as you are capable of making
> it, you are, by definition, inadequate to debug it.
Received on Wed May 29 2002 - 19:21:34 CEST