Removing Sort Order?

"Jamie Collins" wrote in
oups.com:

More
controversial is 'field': the literature and the purists will use
'columns' and 'rows' but the terms 'fields' and 'records' are so widely
used that they should be considered synonyms.


.... or entities and attributes...

g

Tim F

*column* width? on a *report*? are you actually working with a report
object, or are you trying to print a form? if the latter, then don't;
instead, create a report and set it up to sort however you want, and display
whatever fields you want to see, and print that.

hth


"Debris" wrote in message
ink.net...
Thanks. Excellent point -- I couldn't go back re-sort the list
(especially
add an item between two existing items) if I were using AutoNum and
letting
Access set the PK for me.

The SortOrder works great. Next question, though, is that on a *Report* I
can't seem to sort my categories with out also including / printing the
SortOrder field. I guess I could set the column width to zero, but that
seems sort of... whatever.

BTW, what I'm doing is extracting hundreds of transactions for a given
project, sorting them into several categories and subcategories (two
levels), and totalling up the transaction amounts for each cat/subcat. --
ie,

Phase 1 Engineering....$
Phase 1 Materials....$
Phase 1 Labor....$
Phase 2 Engineering....$
Phase 2 Materials....$

and so on. And I want the categories to appear in a certain
(non-alphabetical!) order, hence the original question.

Thanks



"tina" wrote in message
...
comments inline.

"Debris" wrote in message
ink.net...
Hello,

Thanks to everyone for their responses. I can feel myself wandering
off
into the deep end of the pool, so to speak, so bear with me if these
questions are a bit simplistic.

First, a tactical question: should I add a "SortBy" number field, or
should
I just let Access create a primary key for me using AutoNum? Or,
should
I
add the SortBy number field, populate it manually, and make *it* the
PK?

at some point in the future, you may add more selections to this list.
whether you use an Autonumber primary key, or manually populate a
numeric
primary key, you're "locked in" to that number sequence - which may not
return the order you want, on either an ascending or descending sort.
with
a
separate SortBy field, you can change the sort order of the records at
any
time, any way you choose, giving you complete control, and complete
flexibility to meet changing needs.


Next, a philosophical one: totally agree w/ the use of forms and a
combo
box. But, I guess I'm confused -- shouldn't the combo box be looking
up
values stored in a table?

yes.

I define a relationship between tables using the
Lookup Wizard, then modify it (i.e. enforce referential integrity)
using
the
Edit Relationships box.

you don't need a Lookup Wizard to link your tables - just open the
Relationships window and do it manually, including enforcing referential
integrity. note: be careful about setting the CascadeDelete option. it
definitely has its' uses, but many times you will *not* want an
automatic
deletion of "child" records; what you'll want, instead, is to disallow
deletion of a "parent" record when one or more child records exist. this
is
accomplished by enforcing referential integrity and *not* checkmarking
the
CascadeDelete option.

hth

Am I totally off base here? Again, stepping off
into the the deep end...

Thanks,

D Bris


"John Vinson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:34:23 GMT, "Debris"
wrote:

Hello,

Hope I'm using my database design terms correctly, and that this make
sense.

In a secondary table, I'm using the Lookup Wizard to look up a values
in
a
primary table. In the primary table, there is only one field, and
that
field is the primary key (i.e, I'm not using AutoNum to create a
numerical
primary key, I'm using the text itself as the key).

I entered my records in the primary table a specific order, but
Access
keeps
rearranging them in alphabetical order, and I don't want that. The
Remove
Filter/Sort command doesn't seem to do the trick.

A Table is displayed sorted in primary key order. It's actually
STORED
in whatever order Access finds convenient. If you want the records in
a particular order, you must - no choice! - add another field to the
table as a sort key, and base your combo box on a query sorting by
this field.

Note that the Lookup Wizard is really limited and many developers
recommend against ever using it. See
http://www.mvps.org/access/lookupfields.htm for a critique. You can
use a Form with a combo box; table datasheets are *not* ideal for
data
entry or editing.


John W. Vinson[MVP]

Sorry, misspoke.

What I was trying to say earlier was,

In a report, I seem to be able to get my records to sort in my particular
order only if I include my SortBy field on the report itself. Put another
way, I can't figure out how to get the records to sort by my SortBy field
unless I include it in the report.

What was also trying to say earlier, I guess I can "hide" the SortBy on the
report field by making the width of the text box (terminology? it's not the
box with the label, but the box where the data is presented) zero. But that
seems sort of a workaround.

Thanks, D

"tina" wrote in message
...
*column* width? on a *report*? are you actually working with a report
object, or are you trying to print a form? if the latter, then don't;
instead, create a report and set it up to sort however you want, and
display
whatever fields you want to see, and print that.

hth

well, the SortBy field must be included in *the report's RecordSource*, but
there should be no need to actually put a control on the report and bind it
to the field. are you setting the report's sort order in the Sorting and
Grouping box? if so, have you tried sorting by the SortBy field, without
having a control bound to that field in the report's body?

if that doesn't work, even after you've set it up correctly, go ahead and
bind a control to the SortBy field, and just set the control's Visible
property to No.

hth


"Debris" wrote in message
ink.net...
Sorry, misspoke.

What I was trying to say earlier was,

In a report, I seem to be able to get my records to sort in my particular
order only if I include my SortBy field on the report itself. Put another
way, I can't figure out how to get the records to sort by my SortBy field
unless I include it in the report.

What was also trying to say earlier, I guess I can "hide" the SortBy on
the
report field by making the width of the text box (terminology? it's not
the
box with the label, but the box where the data is presented) zero. But
that
seems sort of a workaround.

Thanks, D

"tina" wrote in message
...
*column* width? on a *report*? are you actually working with a report
object, or are you trying to print a form? if the latter, then don't;
instead, create a report and set it up to sort however you want, and
display
whatever fields you want to see, and print that.

hth

Thanks.

Setting the Visible property to "No" is good, quick solution. That did the
trick.

*Bear in mind that (a) I was using the report wizard because (b) I hate
working on report design. But now I'm a little less intimidated and will
start modifying the report in the Design view.

I've gone way off topic here, from table design to reports, so I'll wrap
this up.

Thanks for all of the help,

D

"tina" wrote in message
...
well, the SortBy field must be included in *the report's RecordSource*,
but
there should be no need to actually put a control on the report and bind
it
to the field. are you setting the report's sort order in the Sorting and
Grouping box? if so, have you tried sorting by the SortBy field, without
having a control bound to that field in the report's body?

if that doesn't work, even after you've set it up correctly, go ahead and
bind a control to the SortBy field, and just set the control's Visible
property to No.

hth

you're welcome


"Debris" wrote in message
ink.net...
Thanks.

Setting the Visible property to "No" is good, quick solution. That did
the
trick.

*Bear in mind that (a) I was using the report wizard because (b) I hate
working on report design. But now I'm a little less intimidated and will
start modifying the report in the Design view.

I've gone way off topic here, from table design to reports, so I'll wrap
this up.

Thanks for all of the help,

D

"tina" wrote in message
...
well, the SortBy field must be included in *the report's RecordSource*,
but
there should be no need to actually put a control on the report and bind
it
to the field. are you setting the report's sort order in the Sorting and
Grouping box? if so, have you tried sorting by the SortBy field, without
having a control bound to that field in the report's body?

if that doesn't work, even after you've set it up correctly, go ahead
and
bind a control to the SortBy field, and just set the control's Visible
property to No.

hth

A belated, quick follow-up:

I found Grouping & Sorting, a very powerful tool. That's exactly what I
needed -- a means to sort entries on a report by a field that doesn't
necessarily show up on the report.

And, those wizards can be evil! I got so wrapped up in the wizard that I
ignored the G&S button right in front of me.

Thanks, D


"tina" wrote in message
...
well, the SortBy field must be included in *the report's RecordSource*,
but
there should be no need to actually put a control on the report and
bind
it
to the field. are you setting the report's sort order in the Sorting
and
Grouping box? if so, have you tried sorting by the SortBy field,
without
having a control bound to that field in the report's body?

if that doesn't work, even after you've set it up correctly, go ahead
and
bind a control to the SortBy field, and just set the control's Visible
property to No.

hth