Newbie question:
Just starting on my v9 database in earnest (medical practice/patient records).
I know that a set is limited to 40 tables. I only anticipate at present maybe 10 "secondary" tables that would be connected to the primary table which would be called "patient_tbl". The patient table would have just a few fields (name, DOB, pt_id, address, ss#.) "Secondary" tables linked to the patient table would be broken into various medical grouping, (signs, symptoms of their illness, radiologic studies, pathology, labs, etc).
Many of the fields in the various table would be such that a lookup tables would be needed.
For example, separate tables for medications, diseases, allergies, operations, etc.
Each lookup table is pretty basic, 2 fields: a unique ID field and the "info" field. For example, the medication lookup table would have the fields med_id, and meds. (As you might imagine the number of meds is very large so a simple list would not work. This really is the case for nearly all of my lookup tables.)
I can get the secondary table to "draw" from the lookup table without having to link the tables in a set structure, using the field rules and setting the linking field, source/fill choices and I set it as a drop down list box.
However, my instints say that it would be better if it was "truly" linked in the set in a parent/child fashion. However, if I do that I would rapidly exceed the 40 tables per set rule. By the same token I am invoking some type of linking function and I don't know if that is going to gum up the database.
This must be a common issue. Please advise. Thanks!
Just starting on my v9 database in earnest (medical practice/patient records).
I know that a set is limited to 40 tables. I only anticipate at present maybe 10 "secondary" tables that would be connected to the primary table which would be called "patient_tbl". The patient table would have just a few fields (name, DOB, pt_id, address, ss#.) "Secondary" tables linked to the patient table would be broken into various medical grouping, (signs, symptoms of their illness, radiologic studies, pathology, labs, etc).
Many of the fields in the various table would be such that a lookup tables would be needed.
For example, separate tables for medications, diseases, allergies, operations, etc.
Each lookup table is pretty basic, 2 fields: a unique ID field and the "info" field. For example, the medication lookup table would have the fields med_id, and meds. (As you might imagine the number of meds is very large so a simple list would not work. This really is the case for nearly all of my lookup tables.)
I can get the secondary table to "draw" from the lookup table without having to link the tables in a set structure, using the field rules and setting the linking field, source/fill choices and I set it as a drop down list box.
However, my instints say that it would be better if it was "truly" linked in the set in a parent/child fashion. However, if I do that I would rapidly exceed the 40 tables per set rule. By the same token I am invoking some type of linking function and I don't know if that is going to gum up the database.
This must be a common issue. Please advise. Thanks!
Comment