Interesting suggestions. You were the only one I mentioned this question to
that expressed reservations regarding the tactic. I am interested in why
you suggest,
> And maybe it won't. I'd check this assumption first.
Anyway, thanks for your time and effort, I genuinely do appreciate it.
...
> "Mark L. Breen" <m
...@solution-providers.ie> wrote:
> >Hello All,
> >My questions is regarding the structure of a database that stores
inventory.
> >I have two types of transactions, one the increases the effective
inventory
> >level and one that decreases the effective levels. To calculate the
actual
> >inventory level, I can sum all the increases and subtract from that all
the
> >decreases. This would give me my inventory balance.
> >Obviously, that query could get quite slow, so it is desirable to store
the
> ^^^^^
> And maybe it won't. I'd check this assumption first.
> >actual balances in an inventory table. This would give you an immediate
> >record of what is in stock for a particular part. I am considering
> >including an Adjustments table. This will basically keep track of the
old
> >balance, the adjustment and the new balance.
> >My question is how do you guys handle this kind of stuff? Is there a
> >recommended way to handle inventory? I am nervous that I will end up
with
> >the calculated stock not being equal to the static stock. I know I am
> >breaking the rules of normalisation by storing a calculated field, but
even
> >the banks use this tactic.
> Banks also charge obscenely high services fees, so not all they
> do is right. <g>
> Check that it would be significantly slower. If you denormalize,
> then you have to worry about balances getting out of sync. You either
> ignore this or have to write a special program to deal with it.
> Having said that, some possibilities:
> 1) Consolidate old transactions. You might keep only the last
> year's transactions and consolidate the earlier ones.
> 2) If you have a definite closing of a period, you might store the
> balance as of the last complete period. This could get you into the
> same hassle above, but if you don't post to prior periods, it could be
> a reasonable kludge.
> >You advice will be much appreciated.
> Oh, good! Gratitude is nice.
> Sincerely,
> Gene Wirchenko
> Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
> I have preferences.
> You have biases.
> He/She has prejudices.
|
