Re: Newbie question about db normalization theory: redundant keys OK?

"raylopez99" <raylopez99_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:90e9e302-822a-4b6c-9eab-b323716dfafb_at_i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

> Me, I code for fun. Also I'm essentially recreating for my family and
> myself a program that Microsoft sells called "Money". It's more fun
> when the program is home brew, and my folks will not buy an commerical
> program so it's a good way for me to make sure they track their money
> properly (right now they're using paper and pencil, and it's
> incredibly inefficient).

By an odd coincidence, I'm building a home accounting system in MS Access myself, as a hobbyist. I'm doing this as a hobby after retiring from a career in information systems. As nearly as I can tell MS Money and Quicken are both "single entry bookkeeping systems". In addition MS Access has a single entry bookkeeping system that one of the wizards can create for you right out of the box.

So why am I building my own, instead of using one of those? Well, I understand double entry bookkeeping, but I don't understand single entry bookkeeping. It is supposedly much simpler than double entry bookkeeping, but it just doesn't hang together, from my point of view. There are double entry bookkeeping products out there, like Quickbooks, but I'd rather build my own, after using some of them. Call it a quirk.

MS Access is almost a toy for me, compared to the relational DBMS products I used professionally. (I include SQL DBMS products under the category "relational" although some of the regulars here object to that inclusion. All my database work was on SQL DBMS products.) However, unlike some regulars in here, I've got an appreciation for it, rather than treating it with mere scorn.

And contrary to what one comment said, you can do data management with MS Access. At a very simple, desktop level, that is what it is for. It has limits. And some people have serious misconcpetions about databases based on their experiences with Access.

But for what you and I are doing, it's plenty good enough. I'm only using Access 97. I won't even updgrade to 2000, nevr mind 2007, until I have a reason to. I mention this only because some things I say about Access won't be true in the version of Access you are using.

>
> Bye,
>
> RL
Received on Sun Dec 16 2007 - 12:45:03 CET