If you think about it each

FireFleur — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 03:20:36 +0000

If you think about it each T-Shirt of a different size, colour and design is a separate stock item.

You will end up holding stock on each of those criteria, the idea is to model to unique item, then create collections.

So say you have a TShirt called the TBird, that TBird is a collection, you actual stock items would be:

TBird Red XL - 4 in stock - price
TBird Red Sm - 6 in stock - price
TBird Blue XL - 7 in stock - price
... etc

That's the way to think about it. You can share price but I wouldn't bother, keep the flexibility maybe blue dye will be more expensive, or less material is used in a small etc.

IO.Relentless wrote: Great

Duke Nukem — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:34:42 +0000

IO.Relentless wrote:

Great thank you so much.

I will take a good look at OSCommerce.

Thanks,
Relentless.

OSCommerce should be able to make this easier.

Great thank you so much. I

IO.Relentless — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:50:44 +0000

Great thank you so much.

I will take a good look at OSCommerce.

Thanks,
Relentless.

Is this not redundant

pr0gr4mm3r — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:54:15 +0000

Is this not redundant data?

Nope, that is correct.

So it looks like you have other attributes other than size. OSCommerce has a setup that allows attributes in a separate table, so it may be beneficial to study their database design. Instead of having a table for sizes, you can have a table for attributes in general.

Thank you for your reply I

IO.Relentless — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 10:47:01 +0000

Thank you for your reply

I understand that and have gone through that process. But what if size tshirt with id 1 is available in 3 different sizes:

Tshirt_Sizes
size_id tshirt_id
   1       1
   2       1
   3       1

Is this not redundant data?

Also I have been thinking about identifying each tshirt, each different tshirt whether it is the same make or what ever is still going to need a different ID even if just the size changes. But then you will have millions of records the same apart from one field. is that not redundant data too? for example:

tshirt_id tshirt_style tshirt_color tshirt_size
   1           casual      black         M
   2           casual      black         S
   3           casual      black         L
   4           casual      blue          S
   5           casual      blue          M
   6           casual      grey          M
   7           casual      orange        M
   8           casual      green         M
   9           casual      purple        M
   10          casual      red           M

Is there no better way?

Thank you so much again and im sorry if I am going completely of the rails.

Thanks,
Relentless.

To be fully normalized, you

pr0gr4mm3r — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:44:08 +0000

To be fully normalized, you need three tables:

Tshirts
tshirt_id | (other tshirt fields)

Tshirts_Sizes
size_id | tshirt_id

This sets up a many-to-many relationship. There are multiple sizes that belog to multiple tshirts. List all the available shirts in one table, all available sizes in the other table, and connect the shirts to the sizes by using their IDs in the third table.