One to may Or One to One? (350 fields all static)

Hello Iram,

You said ....
it would of changed the layout of the print form drastically from what it
is now and which I can't change.

Once you have the correct tables, you would create a query that includes the
appropriate tables so that the query includes all the fields you want in the
report. Then you use this query as the record source of the report. The
report would be the same as itis now.

Consider that you are wasting your time and effort continuing with the
current table. Eventually everything will need to be redone.

Be assured that my fee to help you will be very modest. Contact me and let's
get your tables right.

Steve



"Iram" wrote in message
...
I will keep you in mind for I know I will need it and would pay you. I did
find a work around afterall. I did join the two tables and I was able to
continue the records by...

On a "Form" that deals wth the second table (continuation table) I made
the
common field/joined field's (one to one) "Default" setting to be the same
as
whatever is common field in the first form thus creating the identical
common
data in the second field when I opened that secondary form.
Does this make sense?

Some day when I got money I sure would like to contact you for consulting
on
a better aproach for 350 fields that relate to one record and how to audit
changes to any of thte 350 fields. I am currently doing this project for
my
church. Some of the fields are reoccuring and I know how to make subforms
and
subtables however it would of changed the layout of the print form
drastically from what it is now and which I can't change.


Thanks.
Steve.


"Steve" wrote:

Iram,

350 fields! Unequivocably the design of your tble is incorrect. You say
in
your next post that time is of the essence. I provide help with Access
applications for a modest fee. Contact me if you want someone to design
your
tables for you. My fee will be very modest.

Steve





"Iram" wrote in message
...
Hello.
I am creating a table that requires more than 250 fields (total of
about
350
fields). All of these fields are required per record. When I couldn't
create
any more fields because of the limit I figured that I could create
another
table and extend the fields into it by joining a common field in both
tables
using a one to one relationship. The problem is that when I create a
record
in the primary table I can't get the joined table to create auto create
the
same common field like a One to Many relationship does automatically.
How
do
I mitigate this? I need about alot of fields for one record. Later I am
going
to need help creating an audit table for all 350 fields joined across
two
tables, but that's going to be a whole new question all on its own.


Thanks.
Iram/mcp

Iram, ... and you would definitely be wasting your money if you take stevie
up on his offer. These newsgroups are for FREE peer to peer support and
anyone who can not respect the basic rules of these newsgroups is NOT
someone you should trust.

John.. Visio MVP
"Steve" help_available_at_very_reasonable_rates@contactme .com wrote in
message m...
Hello Iram,

You said ....
it would of changed the layout of the print form drastically from what it
is now and which I can't change.

Once you have the correct tables, you would create a query that includes
the appropriate tables so that the query includes all the fields you want
in the report. Then you use this query as the record source of the report.
The report would be the same as itis now.

Consider that you are wasting your time and effort continuing with the
current table. Eventually everything will need to be redone.

Be assured that my fee to help you will be very modest. Contact me and
let's get your tables right.

Steve



"Iram" wrote in message
...
I will keep you in mind for I know I will need it and would pay you. I did
find a work around afterall. I did join the two tables and I was able to
continue the records by...

On a "Form" that deals wth the second table (continuation table) I made
the
common field/joined field's (one to one) "Default" setting to be the same
as
whatever is common field in the first form thus creating the identical
common
data in the second field when I opened that secondary form.
Does this make sense?

Some day when I got money I sure would like to contact you for consulting
on
a better aproach for 350 fields that relate to one record and how to
audit
changes to any of thte 350 fields. I am currently doing this project for
my
church. Some of the fields are reoccuring and I know how to make subforms
and
subtables however it would of changed the layout of the print form
drastically from what it is now and which I can't change.


Thanks.
Steve.


"Steve" wrote:

Iram,

350 fields! Unequivocably the design of your tble is incorrect. You say
in
your next post that time is of the essence. I provide help with Access
applications for a modest fee. Contact me if you want someone to design
your
tables for you. My fee will be very modest.

Steve





"Iram" wrote in message
...
Hello.
I am creating a table that requires more than 250 fields (total of
about
350
fields). All of these fields are required per record. When I couldn't
create
any more fields because of the limit I figured that I could create
another
table and extend the fields into it by joining a common field in both
tables
using a one to one relationship. The problem is that when I create a
record
in the primary table I can't get the joined table to create auto
create
the
same common field like a One to Many relationship does automatically.
How
do
I mitigate this? I need about alot of fields for one record. Later I
am
going
to need help creating an audit table for all 350 fields joined across
two
tables, but that's going to be a whole new question all on its own.


Thanks.
Iram/mcp

Iram wrote:

I wish I had time to research this but I can't. I need to get this up and
running really soon.

From our viewpoint the situation is that of a person who is about to
drive straight down a very steep mountain when there is a switchback
road that will take you hours to safely get to the bottom.

You'll get to the bottom very fast but you'll need to do a lot of
repairs to the vehicle given how much it was rolling end over end and
sideways on the way down.

Good luck.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/

This is really pathetic... This is the third or maybe fourth time Steve has
approached Iram for work in a newsgroup that provides FREE services. That
alone would make me suspect!

--
Gina Whipp

"I feel I have been denied critical, need to know, information!" - Tremors
II

http://www.regina-whipp.com/index_files/TipList.htm

"John... Visio MVP" wrote in message
...
Iram, ... and you would definitely be wasting your money if you take
stevie up on his offer. These newsgroups are for FREE peer to peer support
and anyone who can not respect the basic rules of these newsgroups is NOT
someone you should trust.

John.. Visio MVP
"Steve" help_available_at_very_reasonable_rates@contactme .com wrote in
message m...
Hello Iram,

You said ....
it would of changed the layout of the print form drastically from what
it is now and which I can't change.

Once you have the correct tables, you would create a query that includes
the appropriate tables so that the query includes all the fields you want
in the report. Then you use this query as the record source of the
report. The report would be the same as itis now.

Consider that you are wasting your time and effort continuing with the
current table. Eventually everything will need to be redone.

Be assured that my fee to help you will be very modest. Contact me and
let's get your tables right.

Steve


"Iram" wrote in message
...
I will keep you in mind for I know I will need it and would pay you. I
did
find a work around afterall. I did join the two tables and I was able to
continue the records by...

On a "Form" that deals wth the second table (continuation table) I made
the
common field/joined field's (one to one) "Default" setting to be the
same as
whatever is common field in the first form thus creating the identical
common
data in the second field when I opened that secondary form.
Does this make sense?

Some day when I got money I sure would like to contact you for
consulting on
a better aproach for 350 fields that relate to one record and how to
audit
changes to any of thte 350 fields. I am currently doing this project for
my
church. Some of the fields are reoccuring and I know how to make
subforms and
subtables however it would of changed the layout of the print form
drastically from what it is now and which I can't change.


Thanks.
Steve.


"Steve" wrote:

Iram,

350 fields! Unequivocably the design of your tble is incorrect. You say
in
your next post that time is of the essence. I provide help with Access
applications for a modest fee. Contact me if you want someone to design
your
tables for you. My fee will be very modest.

Steve




"Iram" wrote in message
...
Hello.
I am creating a table that requires more than 250 fields (total of
about
350
fields). All of these fields are required per record. When I couldn't
create
any more fields because of the limit I figured that I could create
another
table and extend the fields into it by joining a common field in both
tables
using a one to one relationship. The problem is that when I create a
record
in the primary table I can't get the joined table to create auto
create
the
same common field like a One to Many relationship does automatically.
How
do
I mitigate this? I need about alot of fields for one record. Later I
am
going
to need help creating an audit table for all 350 fields joined across
two
tables, but that's going to be a whole new question all on its own.


Thanks.
Iram/mcp

Tony,

I like that analogy, I may have to borrow that!

--
Gina Whipp

"I feel I have been denied critical, need to know, information!" - Tremors
II

http://www.regina-whipp.com/index_files/TipList.htm

"Tony Toews [MVP]" wrote in message
...
Iram wrote:

I wish I had time to research this but I can't. I need to get this up and
running really soon.

From our viewpoint the situation is that of a person who is about to
drive straight down a very steep mountain when there is a switchback
road that will take you hours to safely get to the bottom.

You'll get to the bottom very fast but you'll need to do a lot of
repairs to the vehicle given how much it was rolling end over end and
sideways on the way down.

Good luck.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Granite Fleet Manager http://www.granitefleet.com/

The problem is that posters come to these newsgroups and are assaulted by
out local troll, unaware of his reputation.

John... Visio MVP
"Gina Whipp" wrote in message
...
This is really pathetic... This is the third or maybe fourth time Steve
has approached Iram for work in a newsgroup that provides FREE services.
That alone would make me suspect!

--
Gina Whipp

"I feel I have been denied critical, need to know, information!" - Tremors
II

http://www.regina-whipp.com/index_files/TipList.htm

"John... Visio MVP" wrote in message
...
Iram, ... and you would definitely be wasting your money if you take
stevie up on his offer. These newsgroups are for FREE peer to peer
support and anyone who can not respect the basic rules of these
newsgroups is NOT someone you should trust.

John.. Visio MVP
"Steve" help_available_at_very_reasonable_rates@contactme .com wrote in
message m...
Hello Iram,

You said ....
it would of changed the layout of the print form drastically from what
it is now and which I can't change.

Once you have the correct tables, you would create a query that includes
the appropriate tables so that the query includes all the fields you
want in the report. Then you use this query as the record source of the
report. The report would be the same as itis now.

Consider that you are wasting your time and effort continuing with the
current table. Eventually everything will need to be redone.

Be assured that my fee to help you will be very modest. Contact me and
let's get your tables right.

Steve


"Iram" wrote in message
...
I will keep you in mind for I know I will need it and would pay you. I
did
find a work around afterall. I did join the two tables and I was able
to
continue the records by...

On a "Form" that deals wth the second table (continuation table) I made
the
common field/joined field's (one to one) "Default" setting to be the
same as
whatever is common field in the first form thus creating the identical
common
data in the second field when I opened that secondary form.
Does this make sense?

Some day when I got money I sure would like to contact you for
consulting on
a better aproach for 350 fields that relate to one record and how to
audit
changes to any of thte 350 fields. I am currently doing this project
for my
church. Some of the fields are reoccuring and I know how to make
subforms and
subtables however it would of changed the layout of the print form
drastically from what it is now and which I can't change.


Thanks.
Steve.


"Steve" wrote:

Iram,

350 fields! Unequivocably the design of your tble is incorrect. You
say in
your next post that time is of the essence. I provide help with Access
applications for a modest fee. Contact me if you want someone to
design your
tables for you. My fee will be very modest.

Steve




"Iram" wrote in message
...
Hello.
I am creating a table that requires more than 250 fields (total of
about
350
fields). All of these fields are required per record. When I
couldn't
create
any more fields because of the limit I figured that I could create
another
table and extend the fields into it by joining a common field in
both
tables
using a one to one relationship. The problem is that when I create a
record
in the primary table I can't get the joined table to create auto
create
the
same common field like a One to Many relationship does
automatically. How
do
I mitigate this? I need about alot of fields for one record. Later I
am
going
to need help creating an audit table for all 350 fields joined
across two
tables, but that's going to be a whole new question all on its own.


Thanks.
Iram/mcp

John,

Oh I know that but he's been all over this guy *begging* for work. It just
REALLY caught me off guard! Well, the *begging* that is...

--
Gina Whipp

"I feel I have been denied critical, need to know, information!" - Tremors
II

http://www.regina-whipp.com/index_files/TipList.htm

"John... Visio MVP" wrote in message
...
The problem is that posters come to these newsgroups and are assaulted by
out local troll, unaware of his reputation.

John... Visio MVP
"Gina Whipp" wrote in message
...
This is really pathetic... This is the third or maybe fourth time Steve
has approached Iram for work in a newsgroup that provides FREE services.
That alone would make me suspect!

--
Gina Whipp

"I feel I have been denied critical, need to know, information!" -
Tremors II

http://www.regina-whipp.com/index_files/TipList.htm

"John... Visio MVP" wrote in message
...
Iram, ... and you would definitely be wasting your money if you take
stevie up on his offer. These newsgroups are for FREE peer to peer
support and anyone who can not respect the basic rules of these
newsgroups is NOT someone you should trust.

John.. Visio MVP
"Steve" help_available_at_very_reasonable_rates@contactme .com wrote in
message m...
Hello Iram,

You said ....
it would of changed the layout of the print form drastically from what
it is now and which I can't change.

Once you have the correct tables, you would create a query that
includes the appropriate tables so that the query includes all the
fields you want in the report. Then you use this query as the record
source of the report. The report would be the same as itis now.

Consider that you are wasting your time and effort continuing with the
current table. Eventually everything will need to be redone.

Be assured that my fee to help you will be very modest. Contact me and
let's get your tables right.

Steve


"Iram" wrote in message
...
I will keep you in mind for I know I will need it and would pay you. I
did
find a work around afterall. I did join the two tables and I was able
to
continue the records by...

On a "Form" that deals wth the second table (continuation table) I
made the
common field/joined field's (one to one) "Default" setting to be the
same as
whatever is common field in the first form thus creating the identical
common
data in the second field when I opened that secondary form.
Does this make sense?

Some day when I got money I sure would like to contact you for
consulting on
a better aproach for 350 fields that relate to one record and how to
audit
changes to any of thte 350 fields. I am currently doing this project
for my
church. Some of the fields are reoccuring and I know how to make
subforms and
subtables however it would of changed the layout of the print form
drastically from what it is now and which I can't change.


Thanks.
Steve.


"Steve" wrote:

Iram,

350 fields! Unequivocably the design of your tble is incorrect. You
say in
your next post that time is of the essence. I provide help with
Access
applications for a modest fee. Contact me if you want someone to
design your
tables for you. My fee will be very modest.

Steve




"Iram" wrote in message
...
Hello.
I am creating a table that requires more than 250 fields (total of
about
350
fields). All of these fields are required per record. When I
couldn't
create
any more fields because of the limit I figured that I could create
another
table and extend the fields into it by joining a common field in
both
tables
using a one to one relationship. The problem is that when I create
a
record
in the primary table I can't get the joined table to create auto
create
the
same common field like a One to Many relationship does
automatically. How
do
I mitigate this? I need about alot of fields for one record. Later
I am
going
to need help creating an audit table for all 350 fields joined
across two
tables, but that's going to be a whole new question all on its own.


Thanks.
Iram/mcp

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:15:01 -0700, Iram
wrote:

Hello.
I am creating a table that requires more than 250 fields (total of about 350
fields). All of these fields are required per record.

As everyone else has said, this table design IS WRONG on its face.

Please post the names and meanings of a few of these fields. I'm all but
certain that you have one or more on-to-many relationships embedded in each
record. "Fields are expensive, records are cheap"; you may well need to invest
some time and effort in changing the structure of your tables, but adding new
fields ad infinitum is absolutely the WRONG way to go, and will get you in no
end of trouble.
--

John W. Vinson [MVP]

"Iram" wrote in message
...
I will keep you in mind for I know I will need it and would pay you.

I would strongly recommend that you read this before hiring Steve:

http://home.tiscali.nl/arracom/whoissteve.html

"Steve" help_available_at_very_reasonable_rates@contactme .com wrote in
message m...
Hello Iram,

You said ....
it would of changed the layout of the print form drastically from what it
is now and which I can't change.


Wow, after years of trolling you might have finally caught one! I wonder if
they'll slip your hook after reading this:

http://home.tiscali.nl/arracom/whoissteve.html