[AccessD] I hate the Relationships implementation

[Arthur Fuller]

Maybe it made sense when we were dealing with tiny solutions such as the
examples supplied with the initial installation. But when the app grows to
include 100+ tables, 4x as many queries, and if you're linking to a SQL
database, tons of stored procedures. Mayber we have overburdened Access
with apps it was not designed to handle, but damn it, I love Access, and
have made it do remarkable tricks. So have you!

One thing I love about SQL Server is the ability to create numerous
relationship diagrams -- because when you're dealing with 100+ tables, in
any given diagram you are interested in only seven or so tables. I want the
developer of Access what a great too they have and offer a few more
facilities for those among us who take this platform seriously.
On my Access WishList: Allow me to create many Relationship diagrams as the
app wants. I don't expect these to number in the thousands or even
hundreds, dozens would suffice for most apps. You have to look at this
[problem from the dev's POV we have 200 tables, and now I want to examine
only the seven tables concerning, let's say', Manufacturers> We have a list
of Manufacturers, and a list of their Models, and perhaps a list of
Suppliers, although that would depend on your needs and place in the
market. Now we encounter the next problem: Specifications. Each
Manufacturer/Model has a set of Specs. How do we model these? Some Models
will have a lot in common; others have additional Specs. So how to model
this?
My initial thought is to turn Specs into a table with as many rows as
required. I love this approach because I have done numerous
experiments with Tree Views and found them invaluable. (Thos
interested might visit my Smart TV article; Google it and you will find it).
Let me also say that while I love smartTV as a UI, it fails to solve
several problems, and I am trying to invent an additional construct. This
concerns the handling of Lookup Tables. I have never figured out a
clever way to do this. Currently, the Library looks up the BE, but numerous
developers on this forum have told me that I am wrong.
I need some more education here.

-- 
Arthur