StackOverflow2013

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals

PO
primarykey
Id
869900
data
AcceptedAnswerId
0
AnswerCount
0
ClosedDate
CommentCount
1
CommunityOwnedDate
CreationDate
2009-05-15T17:20:43.257
FavoriteCount
0
LastActivityDate
2009-05-15T18:17:50.687
LastEditDate
2009-05-15T18:17:50.687
LastEditorUserId
41665
OwnerUserId
41665
ParentId
869456
PostTypeId
2
Score
1
ViewCount
0
LastEditorDisplayName
text
Body
As I wrote in the comments on the question, I think you're just looking at the problem the wrong way. Your description implies that they can go to all the locations before they have to "build"/finish the orders. The problem is that right now, things are grouped in terms of orders, so they try to fill Order #1 by going to all the locations that it requires, then they start looking at Order #2, etc. Instead, you need to give them aggregated information in terms of the locations, and what they need to pick up at each one. Then they just go to all of the locations, in any order, and pick up everything they need from each one. When they've been to all locations, they go through the list and fill the orders from their big pile of stuff. Let me know if I've made some incorrect assumptions here, and I'll try to come up with a different approach. <hr> Just to try and clear up the difference, here's the employee's motion in each method (the first two are not definite, because they could have gone to locations in different orders, I just followed the exact order you listed in, as an employee probably would). Original sort by date (12 moves): <pre><code>E > Q > Z > B > Y > N > B > A > E > A > B > Q </code></pre> Your re-sorted version (10 moves): <pre><code>E > Q > A > B > Z > B > Y > N > A > E </code></pre> By aggregating by location (7 moves): <pre><code>A > B > E > N > Q > Y > Z </code></pre> To further stress the difference, if I assume that all your locations are equidistant from the previous one (so moving from A to B has a cost of 1), and that you have one for each letter. Also assuming that you both want to start and end at location 0, you have: Original sort by date: amount of movement = 138 Your re-sorted version: amount of movement = 138 (that's kind of surprising) By aggregating by location: amount of movement = 52
Tags
Title
singulars
PostAcceptedAnswerId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostParentId
1. PORe-sort orders to improve warehouse efficiency
 singulars
 PostTypePostTypeId
 PTQuestion
PostTypePostTypeId
1. PTAnswer
UserLastEditorUserId
1. USChad Birch
UserOwnerUserId
1. USChad Birch
plurals
PostLinksPostIdRelatedPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostLinksRelatedPostIdPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostsAcceptedAnswerId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostsParentIdCreationDate
1. This table or related slice is empty.
VotesPostIdCreationDate
1. VO
 singulars
 PostPostId
 PO
 UserUserId
 This table or related slice is empty.
 VoteTypeVoteTypeId
 VTUpMod
CommentsPostId
1. CONot at all what I'm looking for, but that is an interesting way to do it. I'll have to look into it to see if something like that would work.
 singulars
 PostPostId
 PO
 UserUserId
 USEcho

Querying!

Guidance

A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.