Error 3218 - could not update - record locked (1 Viewer)

Hello group, I have a multi-user application with split databases (BE/FE). The database is opened in Shared mode, Default Record Locking is set to Edited Record, Open Database by Record-level locking. Each user has their own FE.

The users are physical therapists writing their treatment notes. The workflow is for the front desk to enter the patient information (name, diagnosis,etc.) and then the therapist treats the patient and writes their notes on a different form. It may take them 5 to 15 minutes to complete the note.

Each treatment note form includes multiple memo fields. They receive the 3218 when they click the 'Save' button. The users report that no other user has the same patient record open (either at the front desk or another therapist) when the error is received. There are usually only 2-3 users using the system at any one time and it is is a small office so it is easy for them to verify if anyone is on the same patient.

The error occurs several times a day.

Appreciate your help.

Thanks,
Bill

Change the option in the database options from Edited Record to NO LOCKS. You can then set the one form's locks to Edited Record if you must but I would highly suggest that only as a last resort (if people keep getting an error of "someone else has edited this record..etc.).

Normally, even in a multiuser environment, you won't run into collisions very often unless you have a situation where more than one person needs to edit the same record around the same time and/or someone edits something and doesn't save and just leaves it there.

You say a shared database. Are the front ends on each of the users machines or are they opening the same front end in a shared location?

bechert said:

...each user has their own fe.

Click to expand...

Linq ;0)>

Bob, thank for the information. I will give that a try.

These users have the runtime version of Access 2007. I will need to send them an update.
Are the Database Locking settings in the FE?

Thanks,
Bill

Bill

the trouble with locking records is JUST what you have described. The idea is to retain locks for the minimum period of time, and not to keep locks for an extended period

"No locks" is a bit of a misnomer. What it ACTUALLY does is rereads the record before updating the change. If it changed since it first read it, it reports the change to you - if it hasn't changed, it just writes your change.

So you get the benefit of both worlds - safe updates, without locking users out.

I am not 100% sure, but even if you have single record locking, the dbs may actually lock several records at the same time, because I think it has to lock the entire page/cluster on which the selected record resides - so it ALSO locks neighbouring records. (I think!)