John Colby
jcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Mon Oct 27 14:46:04 CST 2003
Frank, You don't 'Peel off" a record. You can use a SQL statement to select a record. Then turn that query into a make table query. Once the query has run, run a second query that deletes the record in the original table. Too bad you have to deal with an idiot. Doing it this way really is bad design, and could potentially lead to problems (in a multi-user system) where two people manage to get the same record because it is still there while you are doing the make table query. In fact I'd advise you add that "in use" flag to the table so that you can set that flag to prevent anyone else getting the same record. I have had to fire clients where the client dictated the design to that level. They never know what they are doing, and they always blame you when it doesn't work as they thought it would. Good luck! John W. Colby www.colbyconsulting.com -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Frank Tanner III Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:29 PM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: Re: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access Question. But.....What happens to the data on the back-end wasn't the initial thrust of my question. My question was, "How can I peel off one record of an external table by using it to create a temporary local table and deleting the record from the back-end table?" --- William Hindman <wdhindman at bellsouth.net> wrote: > ...well you're stuck ...me, I'd be out the door > ...but then I have that > choice :)))) > > William Hindman > <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want > liberty in your lifetime? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frank Tanner III" <pctech at mybellybutton.com> > To: "Access Developers discussion and problem > solving" > <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:06 PM > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access > Question. > > > > Unfortunately, in this case, yes. Apparently she > has > > special needs for each of the tables being > seperate. > > When I ask her why, I get the "not your concern or > > department, do it the way you were requested" > answer. > > > > --- William Hindman <wdhindman at bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > > ...and if you went to your boss and told him > that > > > the proposed design would > > > almost certainly result in more problems, not > less? > > > ...but that there is a > > > much simpler way to do it that won't ...most Sr > VPs > > > don't get there by > > > failing idiot detection tests :) > > > > > > William Hindman > > > <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want > > > liberty in your lifetime? > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Frank Tanner III" > <pctech at mybellybutton.com> > > > To: "Access Developers discussion and problem > > > solving" > > > <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 2:30 PM > > > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access > > > Question. > > > > > > > > > > In this case, I'm not the inflexible one. The > > > > Marketing department is. > > > > > > > > And since their boss is my boss, I > lose....hehe > > > > > > > > Not all of us network engineers are > inflexible. I > > > am > > > > a firm believer in there being more than one > way > > > to > > > > skin a cat. > > > > > > > > --- William Hindman <wdhindman at bellsouth.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > ...nah ...I was frowning at what I kindly > refer > > > to > > > > > as a "notwork" type > > > > > design! ...sorry Frank but I go round and > round > > > with > > > > > network engineers all > > > > > too frequently ...I'd rather take on > reworking a > > > > > design by a newbie than one > > > > > done by a network type ...most newbies can > be > > > > > reasoned with! :))))))))) > > > > > > > > > > William Hindman > > > > > <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you > want > > > > > liberty in your lifetime? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Drew Wutka" <DWUTKA at marlow.com> > > > > > To: "'Access Developers discussion and > problem > > > > > solving'" > > > > > <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 1:53 PM > > > > > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly > Access > > > > > Question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a reason you have a big frown > after > > > > > thinking I was on the Mark! > > > > > > <evilgrin> > > > > > > > > > > > > Again I concur. The only reason I can > think > > > of, > > > > > off of the top of my > > > > > head, > > > > > > for 'moving' records around, is if you > > > actually > > > > > have mobile databases. > > > > > Even > > > > > > then, you would still want a 'master copy' > > > sitting > > > > > there, in case one of > > > > > the > > > > > > mobile ones crashed. I guess that's half > > > > > replication! <grin> > > > > > > > > > > > > Drew > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: William Hindman > > > > > [mailto:wdhindman at bellsouth.net] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:07 PM > > > > > > To: Access Developers discussion and > problem > > > > > solving > > > > > > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly > > > Access > > > > > Question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...I'm sorry Frank but this doesn't sound > like > > > > > much of a "reason" at all > > > > > > ...you're violating data normalization > rules > > > all > > > > > over the place and > > > > > creating > > > > > > tables where a simple flag field and query > > > would > > > > > be much more apropos ...I > > > > > > realize that you may not control things as > > > much as > > > > > you'd like but this > > > > > > sounds like something a network engineer > would > > > > > build rather than a > > > > > database > > > > > > designer ...I thought Drew was on the mark > > > before > > > > > and even more so now > > > > > :(((( > > > > > > > > > > > > William Hindman > > > > > > <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you > > > want > > > > > liberty in your lifetime? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Frank Tanner III" > > > > > <pctech at mybellybutton.com> > > > > > > To: "Access Developers discussion and > problem > > > > > solving" > > > > > > <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:55 PM > > > > > > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly > > > Access > > > > > Question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because the back-end tables are going to > be > > > > > accessed > > > > > > > by several people at once and we want to > > > avoid > > > > > ANY > > > > > > > possibility of duplication. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason why we're moving them to > > > different > > > > > tables > > > > > > > after processing is for marketing to > keep > > > track > > > > > of > > > > > > > different functions based upon the data > in > > > > > tables > > > > > > > specific to certain criteria. IE. > === message truncated === _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com