moke123
AWF VIP
- Local time
- Yesterday, 21:16
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2013
- Messages
- 3,950
Here's what the query should look like and it IS updateable
I hope the photos make it easier to see the differences. Your tables must be set up correctly or you will have many problems going forward.
eshai,
that database is *exactly* the way you should be doing what you're doing. I would follow that example explicitly.
Hi. Sorry, I just couldn't let this misinformation to keep going. I wasn't talking about an UPDATE query. I am talking about a query that is not read-only. In other words, the query can be updated or it is updatable or the data can be change manually by the user when they open that query.is not an update query
its a query build from 2 tables that when you open it its read only
its an access rule if you don't have PK on the same fields of the tables
All I found in there was this quote:yes and the notes table have the student id with a relationship to student id in student table(the relationship is on the query) without pk it wont work
https://support.office.com/en-us/ar...ry-6ca3edfc-6d66-4d90-8219-c2b258d5bed7#bmcan
all explain in here
Nowhere was requiring a Primary Key mentioned in the above. So, I don't know where you got the idea that this is a "rule" in Access. If you have a better link, or if the "rule" is written somewhere else on that page that I just didn't see, please let us know.When can I not edit data in a query?
You can never edit the data in a query when:
- The query is a crosstab query.
- The query is a SQL-specific query.
- The field you are trying to edit is a calculated field. In this case, you may be able to edit the other fields.
- The query is based on three or more tables and there is a many-to-one-to-many relationship.
Note: Although you cannot edit the query datasheet in this case, you can edit the data in a form when the RecordsetType property of the form is set to Dynaset (Inconsistent Updates).- The query contains a GROUP BY clause.
Adam,
No offense, but I think it takes a hundred years for me to understand you. Your posts #24 & #27 is insisting the OP is doing the correct way and in #38 you're saying MajP is correct.
And what was more strange for me was the way you used Unfortunately to say MajP is correct. Are you disappointed?
Hi. If that was directed at me, I would like to direct your attention to post #36 where I specifically said: All I need to have is a unique index in one of the tables.You have not indexed the JOIN fields correctly: These fields do not consist of any unique index or primary key.
http://allenbrowne.com/ser-61.html
Tera,Adam,
No offense, but I think it takes a hundred years for me to understand you. Your posts #24 & #27 is insisting the OP is doing the correct way and in #38 you're saying MajP is correct.
And what was more strange for me was the way you used Unfortunately to say MajP is correct. Are you disappointed?
Hi. If that was directed at me, I would like to direct your attention to post #36 where I specifically said: All I need to have is a unique index in one of the tables.
That's exactly what Allen was saying as well. You can use a PK, but it's not the only option. You can also just use a unique index. In post #36, I also mentioned it was probably "just a matter of semantics," and I think this clarifies why I said that. Meaning, you keep saying "primary key" when you really mean "primary key OR unique index."
primary key we'll always be a unique index without duplicates
and what do you do if you need index with duplicates you lost the PK
primary key we'll always be a unique index without duplicates
and what do you do if you need index with duplicates you lost the PK
Tera,
I was trying to give this gentleman encouragement that he actually CAN do this stuff. ............ Nothing he has said so far has made any sense
I'm sorry, but I seriously have to laugh at this. No offense to anyone. eshai, I'm really glad you solved your own problem! Way to go!I have a lot of criticism for the answers here but I'll keep it to myself
I have a lot of criticism for the answers here but I'll keep it to myself
hey that's a great positive response, moke! maybe things are changing around here for the better.....that is, if I don't post anything further regarding religion....Glad you have your solution and good luck with your project going forward.
I have a lot of criticism for the answers here but I'll keep it to myself
I don't think we wanna compare him to me, do we? I don't think he's gonna like that long-winded thing you just posted, Maj.You come here for help but you come across very rude and arrogant.
I don't think he's gonna like that long-winded thing you just posted, Maj.