Home/ Questions/Q 3315574
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-17T22:21:58+00:00

This design problem is turning out to be a bit more interesting than I’d

  • 0

This design problem is turning out to be a bit more “interesting” than I’d expected….

For context, I’ll be implementing whatever solution I derive in Access 2007 (not much choice–customer requirement. I might be able to talk them into a different back end, but the front end has to be Access (and therefore VBA & Access SQL)). The two major activities that I anticipate around these tables are batch importing new structures from flat files and reporting on the structures (with full recursion of the entire structure). Virtually no deletes or updates (aside from entire trees getting marked as inactive when a new version is created).

I’m dealing with two main tables, and wondering if I really have a handle on how to relate them: Products and Parts (there are some others, but they’re quite straightforward by comparison).

Products are made up of Parts. A Part can be used in more than one Product, and most Products employ more than one Part. I think that a normal many-to-many resolution table can satisfy this requirement (mostly–I’ll revisit this in a minute). I’ll call this Product-Part.

The “fun” part is that many Parts are also made up of Parts. Once again, a given Part may be used in more than one parent Part (even within a single Product). Not only that, I think that I have to treat the number of recursion levels as effectively arbitrary.

I can capture the relations with a m-to-m resolution from Parts back to Parts, relating each non-root Part to its immediate parent part, but I have the sneaking suspicion that I may be setting myself up for grief if I stop there. I’ll call this Part-Part. Several questions occur to me:

  1. Am I borrowing trouble by wondering about this? In other words, should I just implement the two resolution tables as outlined above, and stop worrying?

  2. Should I also create Part-Part rows for all the ancestors of each non-root Part, with an extra column in the table to store the number of generations?

  3. Should Product-Part contain rows for every Part in the Product, or just the root Parts? If it’s all Parts, would a generation indicator be useful?

  4. I have (just today, from the Related Questions), taken a look at the Nested Set design approach. It looks like it could simplify some of the requirements (particularly on the reporting side), but thinking about generating the tree during the import of hundreds (occasionally thousands) of Parts in a Product import is giving me nightmares before I even get to sleep. Am I better off biting that bullet and going forward this way?

In addition to the specific questions above, I’d appreciate any other comentary on the structural design, as well as hints on how to process this, either inbound or outbound (though I’m afraid I can’t entertain suggestions of changing the language/DBMS environment).

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    Bills of materials and exploded parts lists are always so much fun. I would implement Parts as your main table, with a Boolean field to say a part is “sellable”. This removes the first-level recursion difference and the redundancy of Parts that are themselves Products. Then, implement Products as a view of Parts that are sellable.

    You’re on the right track with the PartPart cross-ref table. Implement a constraint on that table that says the parent Part and the child Part cannot be the same Part ID, to save yourself some headaches with infinite recursion.

    Generational differences between BOMs can be maintained by creating a new Part at the level of the actual change, and in any higher levels in which the change must be accomodated (if you want to say that this new Part, as part of its parent hierarchy, results in a new Product). Then update the reference tree of any Part levels that weren’t revised in this generational change (to maintain Parts and Products that should not change generationally if a child does). To avoid orphans (unreferenced Parts records that are unreachable from the top level), Parts can reference their predecessor directly, creating a linked list of ancestors.

    This is a very complex web, to be sure; persisting tree-like structures of similarly-represented objects usually are. But, if you’re smart about implementing constraints to enforce referential integrity and avoid infinite recursion, I think it’ll be manageable.

    • 0