do I need more indexes?

That doesn't sound like a commitment to abide.

A simple on-line search with "rules of conduct" and "microsoft" will lead
straight to Microsoft's Rules of Conduct concerning the newsgroups.

.... or are you offering to pay for the research?G!

Jeff

"Steve" help_available_at_very_reasonable_rates@contactme .com wrote in
message m...
Show where it is written and cite the source.


"Jeff Boyce" wrote in message
...
Are you saying that you'll abide by it if it's written?

"Steve" help_available_at_very_reasonable_rates@contactme .com wrote in
message news
the newsgroup etiquette that precludes folks from soliciting paid
work?

Where specifically is this?



"Jeff Boyce" wrote in message
...
Steve

Sorry if you took umbrage at my suggestion.

I merely reminded the poster that not everyone's advice is of equal
quality. I would thing the code of conduct governing MVPs would
encourage thoughtful and informed consideration.

But as long as we're on the topic you raised, code of conduct, how do
you justify ignoring the newsgroup etiquette that precludes folks from
soliciting paid work?

Jeff

"Steve" help_available_at_very_reasonable_rates@contactme .com wrote
in message m...
Is this within the code of conduct for an MVP? I think not. You ought
to be proud of yourself! You cost the OP a solution to his problem.
BTW, did you even bother to look at the OP's post in the queries
newsgroup?

Steve



"Jeff Boyce" wrote in message
...
Before taking Steve up on his offer, you might want to google him and
his history in these newsgroups.

Remember, not all advice you receive is of equal
quality/applicability.

Good luck!

Regards

Jeff Boyce
Microsoft Office/Access MVP

"jmoore" wrote in message
...
Thanks for your offer. I posted the SQL for the queries in the
queries
group. Each field in tReview is a rating of that criteria for a
sample set of
cases from tSample. There are a large number of cases in tSample
that will
not be used. Each case in tReview is a row, and contains all of the
information for the complete review. A report for each county with
a summary
of their cases is produced during the year. These work fine. At
the end of
the year, an annual aggregate report is needed. It gives the
information we
need, but is very slow. I realize this is designed like a
spreadsheet, but
this has been in use for a year and I don't know how to change it,
or
transfer all of the data to a new design. I hope this is enough
detail. I
appreciate any advice you have.

"Steve" wrote:

You can significantly improve performance by a redesign of your
tables.
Without knowing anything about your database, I can tell you the
design of
tReview is very wrong just looking at what you posted. Your
query(s) have
got to be very complex hust to overcome the misdesign of tReview!
Please
give a detailed description of what you are trying to do in your
database,
and I will be very glad to give you a suggested redesign of your
tables.

Steve




"jmoore" wrote in message
...

After reading several posts here I have changed all of the lookup
fields
to
text fields in my table and deleted the relationships to the
lookup
tables.
I came to this area looking for a solution to slow response time.
Again,
after reading several posts, I suspect it is due to the database
design,
but
it is what I have to work with.

Other than the lookup tables, there are only two related tables.
If it
would be helpful, I can remove the lookup tables.
tSample (with the major fields listed below)
Key (primary key)
CNTYNAME
ID
Strata
Sample

tReview
ReviewKey (PK)
Key (FK)
A1
A2. . .
B1
B2. . .(in total there are over 60 number fields and 50 memo
fields).

I read that creating indexes will increase response time. Will
creating a
unique index from two fields in addition to the PK increase
response time
(e.g., in tSample, a unique key comprised of CNTYNAME and ID)?

All was going well for the individual county reports, but I had
problems
when an aggregate report was needed at year end. I was able to
solve the
problem with advice obtained through this site. First, I created
a union
query (qUnion); a crosstab query based on the union query
(qUnionCrosstab);
and combined qUnionCrosstab and qReviewCountCrosstab into one
query
(qCrosstabsCombined) for the aggregate report. The aggregate
report is
extremely slow to open and painfully slow in design view.

Will it help to create additional indexes? If not, I can live
with this
report as it is since I only need it once a year. I don't know
how to
change
the design and transfer the data.

Thanks for any tips for improvement. I am very grateful for the
great
information I have found here.