[AccessD] reporting and multi-value fields

Susan,

Did it ever occur to you that only two businesses in the world use the term
"users" as opposed to clients or customers? The two businesses are
drug-dealers and software-dealers. Everyone else has more respect.

Getting back to the topic, it is way more useful to create a child-table
with a subform addressing it than a multi-valued field. Let us suppose that
the e/o in this case involves Children (actual humans). We now want to
branch off from there to discern the number of children of parents of any
income bracket that suffer disease or disorder X. Can you appreciate how
difficult this problem becomes with attached fields? If the children reside
in a separate table, this problem is trivial; otherwise it's hideously
complex; admittedly not as complex as planting a satellite on a distant
comet, but still pretty tough.

And let me add that that particular landing was one of the most spectacular
achievements in the history of humankind.Ten years and 50 million kms and 3
landings, and it did it!

That is awesome beyond belief.

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Susan Harkins <ssharkins at gmail.com> wrote:

> You guys think too much like developers and not enough like users. :) I'm
> not opposed to the setup. But, I do think they should provide a built-in
> way to parse for querying and reporting.
>
> Susan H.
>
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Arthur Fuller <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Susan,
> >
> > Stuart has it 100% correct, IMO. Multi-valued columns violate everything
> > we've learned from Codd and Date and others.
> >
> > A suggestion for an article by you, Susan. Find out why the Access
> dev-team
> > decided to add this abomination. That would provide most interesting
> > reading. What were they drinking when they came up with this most asinine
> > notion?
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 9:20 AM, Susan Harkins <ssharkins at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Right Stuart. I was wondering about the best way to parse the elements.
> > Any
> > > thoughts?
> > >
> > > Susan H.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Second best - you need to separate them out in the underlying query,
> > put
> > > a
> > > > report grouping
> > > > on the primary record's key and put the rest of your information in
> the
> > > > section header with
> > > > only the MV values in the detail section
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --
> > > AccessD mailing list
> > > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> > > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> > > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Arthur
> > --
> > AccessD mailing list
> > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
> >
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>



-- 
Arthur