[AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design

You seem to be making more noise than actual rebuttal.

First, show me at least *one* unique feature that server-side, table-level
field lookups gives me, that can't be duplicated using more broadly accepted
techniques. Show me some intrinsic value.

Second, if you throw a grain of sand in the water, it doesn't make a ripple.
So it is with this feature. The database community at large hasn't looked at
table field lookups and said "Hot damn! let's break the client-server model
and embed client UI elements in tables! Comboboxes, subforms ... hell ...
let's stuff entire forms in there, complete with underlying code!". So you
have a query, which inherits all this stuff, and you drag it all over from
the server so you can open ... a report. When you take this line of
reasoning to its logical conclusion, its easy to see that this whole thing
goes against the standard, accepted way that database applications are
constructed. Data in this bucket. App in this other bucket.

Since you didn't refute the 'constructionist' bit, I assume that's what
you're admitting you are: throw in the kitchen sink, hope it helps, hope you
catch all the places it doesn't, and where you miss things, hope it doesn't
bite you.

Puh-lease.

Lets look at some what you say more closely:

>It doesn't affect that, BECAUSE it's a property that is only
>looked at by the Wizards, NOT by Jet, when retrieving the data.

Its used in queries too. Queries inherit this stuff from the table they are
based on.

>Now, when it builds the indexes, JET does look at it, to determine
>if it needs to add indexes to help the listbox.  This is a guess,
>but I would be willing to bet, that what it is adding, is a quick
>index reference to show what the 'displayed' data for that field is.
>-Which is no more indexing, then if you just went and created the
>relationship in the first place!

Jet never spontaneously adds table indexes. If so, you would be able to see
them in the table definition after thay had been created. Temporary indexes
would be very expensive to create and then throw away. Prove your
assertions.

Thats all I have time for now. More later.

-Ken