Search results

Thank you. I think the most effective way to do this is to design data entry as a main form bound to the Client table, with two subforms. One of those subforms allows you to add one or more employees to the employees table for each client. The other allows you to add one or more notes to the...

Perhaps, if this question is asked in the context of an end user, and not the developer, it would be better not to allow the user that level of access to tables at all. Perhaps it would be a better strategy to provide the accdb already linked to the appropriate database and tables. And, if the...

Show us the fields in these tables and the relationships between them please. I think the problem is starting to look more like a table design issue than a data entry issue.

Agreed and enthusiastically supported. I think, based on nothing more than intuition and healthy skepticism, that the default of 0 was left that way because of reasons. IIRC correctly, originally the default was 0, followed by one or two versions in which it was Null, followed by a reversion...

Please explain the context more fully. Please refer to Primary Key, not just "ID", if that is what you mean. Or explain what "ID" is if it's not the Primary Key.

There are two ways to interpret the claim that a value in a Foreign Key field is optional. One, the way I would normally expect to see it, would be that a record in the referencing table need not have a value for that field, depending on reality. So, to conjure up an example, let's say I have a...

Sure. DoCmd.OutputTo ObjectType:=acOutputReport, OutputFormat:=acFormatPDF, ObjectName:="YourReportNameGoesHere"

There are further developments forthcoming. I'll wait for Pat to weigh in. However, this screenshot is relevant to that further discussion. The point is that the hidden index is different from ordinary indexes. It's created, as we had surmised, as part of the relationship involving the field...

You're getting there. It took me a while to come around on this one. :cautious: I always remove the autoindex code words because they can create redundant indexes. That's why they do not appear in the sample database Pat provided as well. Point #2 -- yes, "implicit" and almost always "hidden"...

I've seen similar names generated in SSMS when creating indexes as well. Sorry I was not clear that I was referring only to the naming convention. Did you see my post to the Non-NDA email list? Would you like to augment it?

Okay. Virtual indexes is not such a good choice then. However, I'm fine with calling them something other than "hidden" as long as the actual concept and reality of them is recognized. And, of course, that they are accounted for.

I think what SSMS does is employ the same syntax for such indexes as the naming illustrated in your example. That was what I was driving at, not that it creates the index, but that the two-table-name syntax was similar.

You have a JSON output that requires that specific format? Does it apply to all values? I.e. 2.2 or 3.1 or 1222.3? Or is it just that you want to format 0 the same way? And how about even numbers like 4 or 12 or 9876? Do they also need to be formatted with a single decimal?

And that is pretty much all I need to convince me that there is an index there. Access created it when the Foreign Key constraint was created, and its name reflects that aspect if its origin. Call it virtual, call it hidden, or call it an unexplained phenomenon. It's there. If SSMA doesn't...

If you prefer to call it a virtual index, rather than a hidden index, I'm fine with that. It is there, whether it is "virtual" or "hidden". ADO identifies it in the table schema in Access. I do not trust the makers of SSMA as much as you do. It has come a long way since I first saw it...

Your own screenshot of the VBA reveals the 4th Index. It is not visible in the property sheet. If you don't like the term "hidden", fine. Come up with another term that describes the fact that the Index property sheet does not display the index which ADO finds. To be honest, my initial reaction...

Your screenshot of the Index Property sheet for Table2, in Post #49, shows 3 visible indexes. Your screenshot of the VBA output, in Post #51, shows 4 indexes for Table2, in both the VBA Pat provided and in yours. In other words, both ADO and the Analyzer report think there are 4 indexes on...

It's HIDDEN. That's why your screenshot of the Index property sheet does not show it. That is, in fact, the whole basis of this entire discussion. Access creates an index, automatically, on fields defined as Foreign Keys. These indexes do not appear in the Index Property Sheet. I.e. "hidden"...

Whether or not the user manually adds an index on the field designated as a foreign key, Access will create an index of its own on that Foreign Key field. I was not aware of that, and argued with Pat over it until I finally tried it out for myself (advice which I have freely given to others over...

I followed your instructions on your sample accdb that you provided. I finally learned what you had been trying to explain. We need to follow up again with a detailed report on the problem for Microsoft. Unfortunately, the Access team doesn't own the SSMA and I don't know how much interaction...