Re: Renumbering records

Atomic Storm <jswinstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Xns992A54E8B8FD9jgwinstrommicrosoft@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:

"David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Xns9929B365C3769f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@xxxxxxxxx on Mon 07 May
2007 02:38:08p:

You mean you were using the Autonumber to sort the records? That
is inadvisable even in a non-replicated database, as there's no
guarantee that it will reflect the order of addition. An
Autonumber is just a special kind of default value, and you can
append a value to an Autonumber field if it doesn't collide with
existing values. Thus, if you had a gap in the sequence, you
could append a record with the missing value in the Autonumber
column and fill it in. Then the Autonumber values would no longer
represent the sequence in which the records were added.

Nope, I wasn't using Autonumber for sorting. I was entering
products from manufacturers' literature that was in a certain
order. I wanted to maintain that order and I thought the database
would do that... and it did until I replicated it.

No, it really didn't. It's just that a data*** will very often
default to using the first column for its sort, and if that first
column is a sequential Autonumber, then it will be in Autohumber
order.

But you can't actually rely on that happening as there are a number
of factors involved. And it applies only to table datasheets. Once
you display a data*** in a form, anything can happen. In a report,
same thing.

[]

Hold on! The Design Master should not be participating in regular
editing and sychronizing activity. The purpose of the DM is to
make DESIGN CHANGES. It should be squirrelled away somewhere safe
and used only when you're implementing a change to the table
structures. You do have to synch with it often enough to keep it
from expiring, but the default retention period is 1000 days, so
that's not very often.

Now, in place of the DM you should have a hub database that is
your central repository. That would be a regular replica, *not*
the DM.

The only database in existence, other than the DM, is the db on my
laptop (for now). Are you saying I should be adding records etc to
the db on my laptop instead of the DM unless it involves a design
change? Why, what's the difference? (sorry I'm *really* new to
this)

If you need two people editing data in different locations, there
need to be two replicas in addition to the DM.

[]

Data in tables is not sorted no matter what you may think. The
only order that is ever there is one that is imposed upon it. If
there is no logical sort order for the data based on the fields
in your table, then there is no logical sort order for the table
at all.

So could I add a field (ie ItemNo) and use my own numerical values
to keep my data sorted?

Yes, but if you do that, you have the problem of maintaining a
numeric sequence in replicated databases. It's the same problem in a
different guise. I gave 3 solutions to that problem a couple of
posts back.

It's not clear to me what you want or need here. You seem to have
been depending on a sorting method that was invalid to begin
with, and now you see *why* it was invalid. You haven't explained
why it's important to the users that the records be presented in
the order they were added, so it's hard to say what the best way
to keep them in that order would be.

What I want/need is a visible, sorted order of material records so
I don't run into duplication of materials, manufacturers, etc.

Duplication should be prevented by the indexes in the data tables,
not by a human being scanning a list in a particular order.

I appologize for this seeming so complicated. Maybe because I'm
new to Access, I'm looking for something I can't get from Access.

You're making the same mistakes that many people make in regard to
basic database concepts.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
.

Quantcast