![]() ![]() This is because a company has a net cash outflow in the entire amount of the asset when the asset was originally purchased, so there is no further cash-related activity. ![]() Instead, they can more easily be associated with an entire system of production or group of assets, such as a production line.ĭepreciation is considered an expense, but unlike most expenses, there is no related cash outflow. In reality, revenues cannot always be directly associated with a specific fixed asset. Thus, if you charged the cost of an entire fixed asset to expense in a single accounting period, but it kept generating revenues for years into the future, this would be an improper accounting transaction under the matching principle, because revenues are not being matched with related expenses. The reason for using depreciation to gradually reduce the recorded cost of a fixed asset is to recognize a portion of the asset's expense at the same time that the company records the revenue that was generated by the fixed asset. These entries are designed to reflect the ongoing usage of fixed assets over time.ĭepreciation is the gradual charging to expense of an asset's cost over its expected useful life. Ideally, everywhere in your schema that you encounter a particular column name, it should mean the same concept, and you shouldn't encounter the same concept under any other names.The accounting for depreciation requires an ongoing series of entries to charge a fixed asset to expense, and eventually to derecognize it. Where possible I'd advise using as few names as possible. Certainly I didn't expect (before writing the queries) that I'd find AccountNum also in the picture and it's not the same thing as AcNumber. I'd probably just use AcID everywhere outside of the Accounts table unless you want to go one step further and just use AcNumber as a natural key and use it everywhere and remove AcID from the picture. One thing I'd serious recommend fixing though - having all of AcNumber, AccountNum and AcID seems like a recipe for confusion. Without further information though, I'd say either will probably work. If you haven't been given any scenarios to work against, try to conjure some up like the above and see how well they fit. If you have to apply interest of other account corrections, what account will you match those with in Voucher_2? If all transactions are required to be balanced, how will you ensure that there are always pairs of rows in Voucher that match each other? SUM(CASE WHEN V2DebitAc = V2CreditAc THEN 0 ![]() Are you given example queries that should be run over your system? If so, have you tried writing those queries and seeing whether one or other of your structures makes all of those queries harder or simpler? Also, have you considered what integrity constraints you may wish the database to enforce?įor instance, finding the current balance of an account can be reasonably performed using either structure.: SELECT I don't know above table structure are correct or not, but I am stuck at the Voucher and Voucher_2 tables that which one I should use for my Database.Įither one seems serviceable. V2CreditAc int references Accounts(AcID), V2TranRef bigint references Transactions(TrnRef), TranRef bigint references Transactions(TrnRef), TrnRef bigint primary key identity (1,1), I got a database project from my university to finish, but I am stack at the structure of debit and credit table that how to make it in SQL Server, my code is shown here: create table AcCatĪcCategory smallint references AcCat(CatID) ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |