-------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "Pettis, Barry" <Barry.Pettis@xxxxxxxxx> > My bad. > > 1. I work at a Manufacturing plant. > 2. We identify different process steps using numbers along with a short > and long description > 3. For a part we manufacture the system identifies SOME properties of > said part. Things like nuper of process steps, part name, part family, > and other items. > 4. Using various other properties, the total of all process steps of > said part being one, I can identify what kind of metals said part uses > by referencing the "SHORT DESC" of the process steps. > > Now on it's own the "PROCESS STEP" is what I consider an atomic data > meaning that the if I look at it there is not a sub piece that it could > be broken down to. So when I need to store that data I place it into > it's own MSAccess Database. The part about "PROCESS STEP" is not consistent, see below. Is the data in an actual Access database or a Postgres table linked in to Access? > > However, I have a database for all of the parts my site manufactures. I > have a need to be able to extract a parts full process flow so using > some other tables which will identify and order the process steps I can > make a process flow which lists the short or long description depending > on my need. > > I have another database which I need to look at the inventory ( not > caring what particular part just qty ) at a particular process step. > Now I may want to see one desc or another. However, the fact that a > part is placed in a family value of say "Microcontroller or ASIC or > EEPROM" it doesn't have any relationship to say a particular "PROCESS > STEP" hence my comment of no relation ( I guess I should have said > tenuous relation ) instead of no relation. > > Now as I see it logically I have 3 different databases ( 1 for holding > atomic information about a process step, 1 for being able to list a > products manufacturing flow, and 1 that is an inventory ). So in my > logic I either have to have the "PROCESS STEP" data in 2 databases or I > have it in one database and other databases just "LINK" to it. > > Now with the discussion in this thread I'm beginning to see that the > term "LINK" is kind of MSAccess unique. > > So yes I use multiple databases. ( 4 of which are ) > 1. Lists all pats I manufacture ( includes general summary information > like cycle time, number of process', number of critical process', number > of metals used, etc... ) > 2. Lists all process steps at my site, and indicates if it is a metal > and which type, if it's a critical process or not, which functional area > said process resides ) > 3. Lists the substeps for a particular PROCESS STEP to determine how > many internal steps there are to any given process ( this can be > dependent on the part ) Not consistent with assertion that "PROCESS STEP" is atomic and can not be broken down further as stated above. > 4. Lists IF a part has an "ENGINEERING" restriction to a particular > tool and which tool part has to run on at a given Process Step. > > > > I guess the biggest problem is trying to describe something in terms > that all can understand. On a forum like this most "CONTRIBUTORS" those > who answer questions speak a language that the typical novice poster > doesn't use or understand. So when the question is posed there is a > disconnect between poster and responder. So I'm hoping that I've been > able to adequately clear the air. If not it's always fun to try. I am a great believer in "graphite engineering" i.e putting pencil to paper and sketching out my ideas before tweaking software. You might want to spend some time doodling to work out you want before getting too much into the details. As Sam said in another post a review of terms might be worthwhile, will help in making sure you are comparing apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Access is not the best way to learn about databases as it has its own terminology that does not translate well. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Klaver [mailto:aklaver@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:30 AM > To: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Pettis, Barry > Subject: Re: Using tables in other PostGreSQL database > > On Monday 31 March 2008 4:20 am, Pettis, Barry wrote: > > Wow seems like this post took on a life of it's own. All I wanted to > do > > was to be able to use a table that someone else has all ready created. > > Seems like somewhere someone mentioned a DBA ( which I'm assuming to > be > > "Database Administrator" ) well as far as I know we don't have one > > though I wish we did. > > > > The basis of my question comes from the fact that I currently use > > "Multiple" access databases. Each database contains 1 piece of > > information ( information that on it's own has no relationship to > other > > data ), but information in other databases will use items from it in > it. > > Hence in MSAccess I "LINK" the tables in. Which I know is nothing > more > > than a connection. > > Now I am confused. If the data has no relationship to other data why do > you > need to link to it? Second in your original post you said you where > trying to > pull data from multiple Postgres databases now you say you are using > multiple > Access databases. > > > > > I wish I could say that I knew with certainty what schemas are or 2PC > > is. Would be nice if I had exposure to other databases as well. I'm > > sure that I'd have the same questions about MSft's SQL server. > > > > But I thank the forum here for all the input. > > > > Regards, > > Barry Pettis > > > > CSO Atmel Corp > > Project Tech > > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > > -- > Adrian Klaver > aklaver@xxxxxxxxxxx > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Adrian Klaver aklaver@xxxxxxxxxxx -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
