I think your table(s) need to be normalized. A red flag is when you think
you need to add 10 more fields.
Can you describe your fields and how they are used?

Signature
Duane Hookom
MS Access MVP
--
The Main table holds essentially contract details. I can place those 10 new
fields into these groups: 1) Nature of Cost and 2) Billing Area. They are
checkbox type fields where the user can check any of these fields, so a combo
box will not do.
As for those 3 subforms, they represent 1) Development costs, 2) One-Time
Costs, and 3) Ongoing Costs. Each contract will have multiple records here,
so I think 3 separate tables with foreign keys are required. I’m just not
sure if I should if I should add these subforms directly in my main contract
data entry form or have the user open another form.

Signature
Roger
> I think your table(s) need to be normalized. A red flag is when you think
> you need to add 10 more fields.
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> >
> > I would greatly appreciate any input.
Duane Hookom - 08 Aug 2005 18:50 GMT
I am even more convinced that your tables aren't normalized. I think you are
storing "data" values as field names.
Can you provide any more information about your fields and how they are
used?

Signature
Duane Hookom
MS Access MVP
> The Main table holds essentially contract details. I can place those 10
> new
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>> >
>> > I would greatly appreciate any input.
Roger - 08 Aug 2005 19:22 GMT
I’m confident that the existing tables are normalized. There are actually
quite a few more relationships that I didn’t include since they are not
relevant to this post. However, I would agree with you on the data value as
field names comment for these 10 new fields. I could create 2 combo boxes in
their place, but the user must have the ability to make more than one
selection for each. I just wanted to avoid creating more 1 to many
relationships if I could.
The Development Cost table will have $amounts for different line items
representing different types of development costs. A similar description
applies to the One-Time Cost table. The Ongoing Costs table will have the
$amount for different years. All three tables will reference the contract id.

Signature
Roger
> I am even more convinced that your tables aren't normalized. I think you are
> storing "data" values as field names.
[quoted text clipped - 62 lines]
> >> >
> >> > I would greatly appreciate any input.
Duane Hookom - 08 Aug 2005 20:15 GMT
If you don't want to provide your table structure information, then I don't
think it would make any difference which table you add the fields to. I
would keep in mind that different users might make updates to different
fields. Try to group your fields by "prospective user" so that you don't get
two users attempting to update the same record at the same time.
Properly indexed tables should allow you to use subforms with no performance
issues. If performance becomes an issue, you can modify your design in the
future.
Regarding the normalization... it sounds like you have currency or other
attributes that should be creating records, not fields.

Signature
Duane Hookom
MS Access MVP
--
> I'm confident that the existing tables are normalized. There are actually
> quite a few more relationships that I didn't include since they are not
[quoted text clipped - 89 lines]
>> >> >
>> >> > I would greatly appreciate any input.