Search results

I gave you a bunch of data, give me a bunch of data back that represents what you would like to appear in the final query

Can you demonstrate what you want to occur? Suppose you have the below sample data, please list the data you expect your query to return: TPIN, ID abc, 1 def, 2 ghi, 1 abc, 2 def, 2

This needs to be 3 queries. 1 for the first SELECT, 1 for the second SELECT and then the third should be the UNION that just brings the results together and that is the one that you should ORDER. You're just trying to do to much in one query and its screwing you up. So take the first SELECT...

You've got 9 records in qryStateTax--2 with MaritalStatus=2, 7 with MaritalStatus=1. You've got 6 records in St Tax Table--3 with MaritalStatus=married, 3 with MaritalStatus=single. You've JOINed qryStateTax to St Tax Table via MaritalStatus so all the records with equal statuses will find each...

Oh, this will be the time we just shut up about the right way and just give you what you want: https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/threads/make-a-negative-number-a-0.333924/ https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/threads/combining-iif-statements.333918/ This explanation won't...

Agree with arnelgp, DLookup has no use in a SELECT query. But what are you trying to do? Let's suppose that Dlookup worked, what did you expect to happen in your SQL statement? I mean, the Dlookup is part of the SELECT, so it would have looked for a field named whatever your Dlookup...

More like a guidance counselor than teacher. Your teacher was MajP in the other thread. Check out post #20 there https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/threads/combining-iif-statements.333918/#post-1960862

The saga continues: https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/threads/make-a-negative-number-a-0.333924/

Ha ha, still not solved, still trying it the hard way: https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/threads/combining-iif-statements.333918/ Even before this new wrinkle everyone advised a custom function. This additional logic now screams for one. Your logic is just too complex to cram into...

Still not detailed enough. You need to tell us every possibility, you've left out 2 cases still. What happens when single/married and gross income is above the respective upper limits you detailed above? Also are single/married the only options? No married filing separate? Are NULL values...

If that is correct, you only have 1 test necessary--the one that is not 0: Iif([MaritalStatus]='Single' AND [Salary]< [LowerBound], [Salary]-[LowerBound], 0) No nesting necessary.

I think you need to stop with code and start with English. As succinctly as you can tell us what you want to happen in each and every case. No code, just words.

In post #8 you used the phrase 'worked perfectly' twice. Now, 6 hours later you are posting for more help. Did you solve your initial issue (the one from post #1) and we are looking at a new one or did you simply go 10 feet down a path you think is a solution to your initial issue and get stuck...

I don't understand your expected results. But that's easy to fix. Just tell me what data you expect to end up with based on the data in your .pdf. No need for an explanation or any words, just give me the data you expect the query to return. What do the results look like? Again, no...

Yes, but 'return' isn't the right verb or concept. Instead it would be more like identifying and using. To help specifically, we would need a better understanding of how your tables are laid out and what the ultimate aim is of identifying the ID. Are you opening a specific report? Are you...

Why are you moving data? In a referential database, you reference data, not move it. If you simply stored the Code value in your Purchase Order Details table you could then just link Purchase Order Details to Products and have all that data available. Why must it be moved?

Equivalent. 100 + (100 * .3) = 100 + 30 = 130 100 * 1.3 =130

Define "can't get it to work"?

First is advice you should learn in general, but not apply in this particular case: Divide, isolate and conquer. You've got 5 datasources in your query any of which could be the offending source with "duplicates". So, narrow it down to find out which one the culprit actually is. Start with...

So you quoted the whole post, then put quote marks around just part of the quoted part you just quoted wholesale, then you made a tangential, near non-sequitur comment?