Wortz, Charles
CWortz at tea.state.tx.us
Tue Apr 1 07:49:04 CST 2003
Roz, I doubt that all 100 tables have unique table definitions. Since they are all storing local data about personnel, I would hazard a guess that 95% or more of the data each is collecting is similar and can go in one table. With SS Security, as I have already suggested, it is no problem to have many departments store their data in one table and keep it secure. But you are correct in that Lambert's tab idea will be quicker for you to implement. Good luck in getting it all done by yesterday. <grin> Charles Wortz Software Development Division Texas Education Agency 1701 N. Congress Ave Austin, TX 78701-1494 512-463-9493 CWortz at tea.state.tx.us -----Original Message----- From: Roz Clarke [mailto:roz.clarke at donnslaw.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday 2003 Apr 01 03:11 To: 'accessd at databaseadvisors.com' Subject: RE: [AccessD] Updating queries with linked tables Charles You're right, it would work. I'm reluctant to clutter the server with lots of little bitty tables though, (like, 100) and to transfer them all would be a major commitment when, of course, they need this fixing yesterday... Lambert's tab form thingy might work kinda, and I guess I could also unbind some of the data without having to unbind the whole lot. Thanks for your help Roz -----Original Message----- From: Wortz, Charles [mailto:CWortz at tea.state.tx.us] Sent: 31-Mar-2003 17:26 To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com Subject: RE: [AccessD] Updating queries with linked tables Roz, I admit that I have never tried updating both Access and SQL Server tables at the same time so I have not run into your problem. But one solution that will work is to move the local tables to the BE, use SQL Server Security to protect the data, and convert the MDBs to ADPs. Charles Wortz -----Original Message----- From: Roz Clarke [mailto:roz.clarke at donnslaw.co.uk] Sent: Monday 2003 Mar 31 10:01 To: 'accessd at databaseadvisors.com' Subject: RE: [AccessD] Updating queries with linked tables Charles Sorry for the vague. I am still a little wiped out from the weekend. Access XP, SQL 7. It's a 1:1 relationship - how do I tell it that?! It's not an update query as such, just a normal select statement behind a form. Thanks Roz -----Original Message----- From: Wortz, Charles [mailto:CWortz at tea.state.tx.us] Sent: 31 March 2003 16:43 To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com Subject: RE: [AccessD] Updating queries with linked tables Roz, Are you saying you have an Access db (version?) with a local table and a link to a table in SQL Server (version?) and you are trying to update both in one update query? If so, remember that the rules of updating generally do not allow the updating of the one side of a one-to-many relationship. If you do have a one-to-many relationship you need to use two update queries, one for each side. Charles Wortz -----Original Message----- From: Roz Clarke [mailto:roz.clarke at donnslaw.co.uk] Sent: Monday 2003 Mar 31 09:33 To: 'accessd at databaseadvisors.com' Subject: [AccessD] Updating queries with linked tables Dear all I have a SQL database which stores core information about members of staff here - name, department, phone extn. etc. I need to publish this information out to several different departments, all of whom need to be able to update the data. At the same time, they each have local data requirements which have to be updated alongside the core data. I was going to put these in Access databases and give each department it's own. What I'm finding (and I can't believe I never hit this before) is that although the SQL tables can be updated through the Access FE, and the local tables can be updated, combine them and wallop, not updateable. Even if all the key fields are included in the query. The amount of info is about 50/50 and it would be highly user-unfriendly to split the data onto separate forms. Is unbound the only way forward??? TIA Roz