Within our internal inventory application, we store three values (in separate fields) that end up being the printed "part number" within this format: PPP-NNNNN-VVVV (P = Prefix, N = Number, V = version).

So for instance, for those who have a component 010-00001-01 you realize it's version 1 of part of type "010" (which let us have to say is a pcb).

So, along the way of making parts engineering really wants to group parts together by continuing to keep the "number" component (the center 5 numbers) exactly the same across multiple prefixes like so:

001-00040-0001 - Overall assembly
010-00040-0001 - PCB
015-00040-0001 - Schematics

This appears problematic and frustrating because it sometimes adds extra meaning towards the "number" area (although not consistently since not every parts with similar "number" component are always linked).

Shall We Be Held as being a purist or perhaps is this fine? 1NF is awfully vague in relation to atomicity. I believe I am mostly frustrated due to the additional logic to make sure that the following "number" area of the overall part number applies and readily available for all prefixes.

In my opinion, no matter database normative rules, once the client/customer/user wants something done in certain manner, there's probably grounds for this, which reason helps you to save them money (in certain fashion). It sometimes helps you to save money by reduction of steps, by reduction of training costs, or just because This Is The Way It Certainly Is Been. Largest, eventually you'll finish up doing the work because they are having to pay to be done (unless of course it violates accounting rules).

In cases like this, it sounds somewhat extra sorting criteria on some queries for reviews, along with a new 'allocated number' table by having an auto-incrementing key. That does not seem bad in my experience. Request me sometime concerning the database report a customer Vice president commissioned strictly to cast data in this fashion as to create a different Vice president look bad in conferences (not too he explained that in advance).

There has been numerous businesses which have foundered, or nearly foundered, around the "part number syndrome". You may have the ability to find some situation studies. DEC part numbers were somewhat confused.

The client isn't necessarily right, however the customer is definitely the client.

Within this situation, it may sound in my experience like engineering is attempting for single number to model rapport. I am talking about the connection between Overall set up, PCB, and Scematics. It's easier to model associations as relations. It enables you more versatility in the future. You might have a difficult time selling engineering about this point.