Bill Benson
bensonforums at gmail.com
Fri Mar 7 23:22:02 CST 2014
I have to hand it to John Colby, he comes through every time! Here is his analysis to answer the post/video I submitted to this List a short while ago. Begin Above-And-Beyond-Response: OK, I watched the video. So this is pretty normal behavior. You created a record with -2147483648 which is the largest possible negative number. Then you create a record with 2147483647 which is the largest possible positive number and one LESS than the first record you created, i.e. when you add 1 to that last number you "run into" -2147483648, and that record already exists. IOW you are rolling over from the largest positive number to the largest negative number, but the largest negative number is already in the table so it can't be inserted again. Of course if you "escape", that value is thrown away and the next (second largest negative) number is not used so it can be inserted. This is exactly what I would expect to happen. The question now is why Access 2003 manages to just pick up at 1. Picking up at 1 is less helpful, since it is almost CERTAINLY already used in a read situation. It really should search for the next "available" number and pick up there. But basically I think Access 2010 is just doing the expected and not handling the issue of running into an already used value. John W. Colby