Search results

Wow, I just had a flashback to when I first learned about concatenation with + and &. I recall when and where I was. I was on a beach. It was 1994. Same time I learned about 'Or Is Null'. I just can't remember the name of the book. More of a booklet as I recall. I keep thinking Speed Ferret but...

good point although I'm so far not having an issue with Chr(!0), Chr(30) being embedded. With two fields I used to concatenate them with a vbNewLine anyway and use the control's Can Grow on reports to handle layout. Do you have a better method to handle printing when you have two fields but...

I'm rather inclined to use one address field which is a free for all that may include Street Name, Street Number, Building Name, PO Box or whatever. This field allows multiple lines. Then separate fields for City, Post/Zip Code, State and Country which are validated from lists.

If you can't modify them using VBA then I can't use them. In my applications, schema modifications are all done by code. No-one manually hacks into a BE to modify objects. That would be contrary to the principles of SDLC. Access forms do some pretty amazing but unintuitive things. LIke allow...

so when he said "Relationship" he really meant "Join". a relationship is a database constraint while a join is just SQL and can be adhoc much easier to follow if we, as professional developers, used the correct nomenclature.

I don't get what you mean, can you give an example?

I was just thinking about all the things to consider when migrating. For example, An Access index has a boolean option for Ignore Null while in SS you need to apply a filter to the index (I think SSMA now does that) but you should only do that if the column allows nulls. FKs in SS have...

and by "connections" you mean relationships? I really only work with SQL Server dbs so I haven't used Lookups since Access Web Apps. I'd kinda forgotten about them. Do they create some kind of relationship in the background? (For Access tables. Obviously not applicable to SS) or are they visible...

I'm trying to think of when you might want a relationship but not use RI. I guess maybe to improve join performance while ignoring orphans?

Yes it should but then there are lots of things that the SSMA does now that it once didn't. FYI: while following your advice to remove explicit indexes where an implicit index already exists for a FK, I found one interesting anomoly. When trying to delete one index (in table design view) I got...

Tip: for testing you can use the Developer edition of SQL Server rather than Express. It's free but has all the functionality of a paid edtion, it's just the license does not allow for its use in production.

What? Why wasn't I told? so I just iterated the index collection of a table and looked at the fields and you are correct! Thanks for this enlightenment, I'll stop adding extra indexes for FKs in Access dbs. apparently the Access team decided that indexes on FKs are essential and I would agree...

When 365 went all subscription on us, the Business plans did not include Access. Only the Enterprise plans did, then after a couple of years MS realised their mistake and added Access to the Business plans. Hence the confusion.

Yes most of us know that date time is a number, left of the decimal point is date, right is the time (at least in Access and VBA not so much in SQL Server which uses two integers). But here we are only concerned with the integer Date Value and how the UI deals with it and converts it to that...

If only it were that simple. The control knows it is a date from its format property, be it short date or whatever. Type in "2/1" and you get 02/01/2024 The issue is that that the Format Condition does not recognise it as a date regardless of the control's format property or does not respect...

Only seems to be an issue comparing dates in unbound controls Typically this is used for Report Criteria Bound controls act as advertised resolved by using Expression Is: Format([txtStart_Date],"yyyymmdd")>Format([txtEnd_Date],"yyyymmdd") Version 2311 Build 17029.20140 Region > Format: English...

Is this issue related to ANSI 92 compatibility? and will changing this resolve the issue? It did seem to in the sample accdb I created and George sent to you when I updated to 2311. Note to others: you won't find this setting in Options for Current Database, it's in the Object Designers tab

OK, I've got the same issue with a combo box. based on a table with 2 columns and only 2 rows. 365 Enterprise 32 bit, accdb in Windows 11 I've even copied a known good combo box from another application and changed the rowsource. Problem persists Tried changing the setting for this application...

The simple answer is Public Sub ReplaceInSQL() Dim qdf As DAO.QueryDef Dim strFind As String Dim strWith As String strFind = "Whatever" strTo = "Whichever" Set qdf = CurrentDb.QueryDefs("QueryName") With qdf .SQL = Replace(.SQL, strFind, strTo) End With End Sub...

The simple solution is to share responsibility for testing with your client or the project manager. With the client having responsibilty for the final testing. I don't release a new version, they do. They must have a critical process test plan that they go through to ensure that there will not...