Do not want data to auto sort

Rick B wrote:
Tables do not reliably sort data.

The word 'reliably' makes no sense here. A table cannot sort data. A
cursor sorts data.

Tables are buckets for storing records

What is it with 'buckets around here?! At the physical level, the data
in a table is stored in a high predictable order (PK order as at last
file compact, date/time order subsequently). You are correct in
pointing out a table's physical attributes are not significant
considerations. Tables should only really be considered at the
logically level i.e. a complete set of entities.

You should not be using the tables as an
interface anyway

Again, this makes no sense. How can table be an interface?

A cursor sorts data? Huh? A cursor is that little flashing thing on your
screen.

A table does not sort data per se. You can sort the data in a table while
you are viewing it. The records are stored in SOME order. I did not flat
out say they DON'T because there was a recent post where someone argued with
an MVP for most of the day claiming that tables do use a logical sort.


I said, a table should NOT be an interface.


Please do not add to a discussion if you have nothing worthwhile to add.

Thanks,

--
Rick B



wrote in message
ups.com...

Rick B wrote:
Tables do not reliably sort data.

The word 'reliably' makes no sense here. A table cannot sort data. A
cursor sorts data.

Tables are buckets for storing records

What is it with 'buckets around here?! At the physical level, the data
in a table is stored in a high predictable order (PK order as at last
file compact, date/time order subsequently). You are correct in
pointing out a table's physical attributes are not significant
considerations. Tables should only really be considered at the
logically level i.e. a complete set of entities.

You should not be using the tables as an
interface anyway

Again, this makes no sense. How can table be an interface?

Rick B wrote:
You seem to be having problems following things.

A cursor is that little flashing thing on your screen.

I suppose this was meant to be ironic? The MSDN article

What the Heck is a Cursor, Anyway?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...rsoranyway.asp

opens with these lines

"No, this is not the little flashing mark that shows you where you are
on the screen. You can think of a cursor .... as another way of
referring to a recordset."

A cursor sorts data? Huh?

Allow me to quote further:

"when our application issues the SQL query, the results are really
returned in no specific order. The records returned reflect the
arbitrary order in which they exist in the database - usually the order
that they were entered in. However, they are presented to us in a nice,
sequential order. This is what a cursor does for us - it manages the
recordset."

I hope you can now appreciate now absurd a statement such as, "You can
sort the data in a table while you are viewing it" sounds.

there was a recent post where someone argued with
an MVP for most of the day claiming that tables do use a logical sort.

At the *physical* level a table has a predictable order. At the
'logical level a table has no inherent order. So you totally missed the
point.

You should not be using the tables as an interface

a table should NOT be an interface.

Change 'should not' to 'cannot'. How could a *database* table (likewise
a query or Query object) possibly be mistaken for an 'interface' at
all?! If this is meant to be humour (do you mean 'table' as in a piece
of furniture, perhaps?), then sorry but it is totally lost on me.

Please do not add to a discussion if you lack even a basic grasp of the
fundamental concepts.

Again, is this adding anything useful to the conversation? Your little
semantics are interesting, but don't really add anything to the topic.
Thanks for the terribly interesting information on the term "cursor". I'm
sure we'll all benefit from reading this.

As far as the interface comment, if you will read the previous posts, you
will find that many newer users work directly in the tables. They add data,
view data, sort, delete, etc. They do not take advantage of the objects
designed for this purpose. They use the table as a user interface to the
database. An interface is the screen used to allow a user to communicate
with the computer. In most cases, this would be a form, but many newer
users mistakenly use the tables.


Have a good day,


--
Rick B



wrote in message
ups.com...

Rick B wrote:
You seem to be having problems following things.

A cursor is that little flashing thing on your screen.

I suppose this was meant to be ironic? The MSDN article

What the Heck is a Cursor, Anyway?

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...rsoranyway.asp

opens with these lines

"No, this is not the little flashing mark that shows you where you are
on the screen. You can think of a cursor .... as another way of
referring to a recordset."

A cursor sorts data? Huh?

Allow me to quote further:

"when our application issues the SQL query, the results are really
returned in no specific order. The records returned reflect the
arbitrary order in which they exist in the database - usually the order
that they were entered in. However, they are presented to us in a nice,
sequential order. This is what a cursor does for us - it manages the
recordset."

I hope you can now appreciate now absurd a statement such as, "You can
sort the data in a table while you are viewing it" sounds.

there was a recent post where someone argued with
an MVP for most of the day claiming that tables do use a logical sort.

At the *physical* level a table has a predictable order. At the
'logical level a table has no inherent order. So you totally missed the
point.

You should not be using the tables as an interface

a table should NOT be an interface.

Change 'should not' to 'cannot'. How could a *database* table (likewise
a query or Query object) possibly be mistaken for an 'interface' at
all?! If this is meant to be humour (do you mean 'table' as in a piece
of furniture, perhaps?), then sorry but it is totally lost on me.

Please do not add to a discussion if you lack even a basic grasp of the
fundamental concepts.

Rick B wrote:
Again, is this adding anything useful to the conversation? Your little
semantics are interesting, but don't really add anything to the topic.

You admit you knew nothing about cursors. This isn't semantics, this is
fundamentals. How, then, can *you* contribute to a discussion about
sorting data? Then you accuse me of having nothing useful to add!

As far as the interface comment, if you will read the previous posts, you
will find that many newer users work directly in the tables. They add data,
view data, sort, delete, etc. They do not take advantage of the objects
designed for this purpose. They use the table as a user interface to the
database. An interface is the screen used to allow a user to communicate
with the computer. In most cases, this would be a form, but many newer
users mistakenly use the tables.

Ah, I think I've worked out where you've been going wrong. You may be
in for a shock here but Access is not a database. Access is a database
management tool and a forms-based Windows application development
platform. The 'database' in question in usually Jet (it could be
something else but let's not complicate matters; when someone says
'Access database' you can usually take it as read that they mean 'Jet
database').

Access does not 'own' Jet; more like the other way round because the
elements Access requires (Forms, Reports, UI settings, etc) are stored
in the Jet database.

I use Jet .mdb and .mdw files everyday but - guess what - I don't use
Access. I have an application built on another platform which uses ADO
to manipulate the data and schema. It's a lot cheaper than a licence:
from MSDN I can download MDAC 2.5, which includes Jet, and then upgrade
to the latest MDAC plus the latest Jet service pack, all for free. The
..mdb format is freely distributable and can be created using ADO.

So, for example, if I want to look at the data in the Employees table
in Northwind I'll retrieve a pre-save connection string to Northwind
and type, or rather extract from by interrogating the schema) a SQL
query such as

SELECT EmployeeID, LastName, FirstName, ... FROM Employees

then open a recordset write a the first portion of the data to a grid
control on a form.

When you do the same in the Access UI you essentially go through the
same processes. I'm going out on a limb here (because, as I've already
admitted, I haven't used Access much) but I'm guessing that rather than
looking at the table itself (whatever that means) you are in fact
looking at the results of a recordset (or very similar object) on a
form on screen. If there is an ability to sort this view then I wager
behind the scenes the recordset is being sorted and the view refreshed.

In short, you are deluding yourself if you think viewing data in the
Access UI is the 'real' table. You may not have designed the form
yourself, written the SQL or instantiated a recordset but that doesn't
mean they are not their, lurking under the covers. If you have been
tricked into thinking you are looking at the 'actual' table, then hats
off to the Access designers!

I use Jet .mdb and .mdw files everyday but - guess what - I don't use
Access.

Hmmm - I thought this was an Access tablesdesign newsgroup?



In short, you are deluding yourself if you think viewing data in the Access
UI is the 'real' table.

Well, if Access has no tables, then perhaps you should complain to Microsoft
about the name i\of this newsgroup.


As I previously stated, I'm sure your long VERY DETAILED VERY SPECIFIC
answers are real helpful to someone who asked how to stop his tables from
sorting. Thanks for sharing your wonderful knowledge with us and correcting
the wording that is used to try to help a newer user resolve his issue. I'm
certain YOUR posts were the ones that answered his questions. NOT!!!

Get a life moron.





wrote in message
ups.com...

Rick B wrote:
Again, is this adding anything useful to the conversation? Your little
semantics are interesting, but don't really add anything to the topic.

You admit you knew nothing about cursors. This isn't semantics, this is
fundamentals. How, then, can *you* contribute to a discussion about
sorting data? Then you accuse me of having nothing useful to add!

As far as the interface comment, if you will read the previous posts,
you
will find that many newer users work directly in the tables. They add
data,
view data, sort, delete, etc. They do not take advantage of the objects
designed for this purpose. They use the table as a user interface to
the
database. An interface is the screen used to allow a user to
communicate
with the computer. In most cases, this would be a form, but many newer
users mistakenly use the tables.

Ah, I think I've worked out where you've been going wrong. You may be
in for a shock here but Access is not a database. Access is a database
management tool and a forms-based Windows application development
platform. The 'database' in question in usually Jet (it could be
something else but let's not complicate matters; when someone says
'Access database' you can usually take it as read that they mean 'Jet
database').

Access does not 'own' Jet; more like the other way round because the
elements Access requires (Forms, Reports, UI settings, etc) are stored
in the Jet database.

I use Jet .mdb and .mdw files everyday but - guess what - I don't use
Access. I have an application built on another platform which uses ADO
to manipulate the data and schema. It's a lot cheaper than a licence:
from MSDN I can download MDAC 2.5, which includes Jet, and then upgrade
to the latest MDAC plus the latest Jet service pack, all for free. The
.mdb format is freely distributable and can be created using ADO.

So, for example, if I want to look at the data in the Employees table
in Northwind I'll retrieve a pre-save connection string to Northwind
and type, or rather extract from by interrogating the schema) a SQL
query such as

SELECT EmployeeID, LastName, FirstName, ... FROM Employees

then open a recordset write a the first portion of the data to a grid
control on a form.

When you do the same in the Access UI you essentially go through the
same processes. I'm going out on a limb here (because, as I've already
admitted, I haven't used Access much) but I'm guessing that rather than
looking at the table itself (whatever that means) you are in fact
looking at the results of a recordset (or very similar object) on a
form on screen. If there is an ability to sort this view then I wager
behind the scenes the recordset is being sorted and the view refreshed.

In short, you are deluding yourself if you think viewing data in the
Access UI is the 'real' table. You may not have designed the form
yourself, written the SQL or instantiated a recordset but that doesn't
mean they are not their, lurking under the covers. If you have been
tricked into thinking you are looking at the 'actual' table, then hats
off to the Access designers!

This looked like it would become quite an interesting thread as of your
first post, peregenem, so I've been following it and, indeed, it payed!

I also thought the style looked familiar, and the - admittedly - deep
knowldge of the inner workings of databases, reminded me of someone I
hadn't seen I the NG's for a while... until I saw you admit you don't
really know much about Access! You did that once before when you were
cornered.

There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something, in my
humble opinion. On the other hand, I fail to see the point in going to
such lengths to prove others ignorant, especially when they are frequent
contributors to these newsgroups, and have helped many others - much
more than you have, from what I've seen.

The one thing that puzzles me the most, though, is why you need all
those identities. I was wondering about it when you were switching
between Jamie Collins and OneDayWhen (looks like a threat?), now what's
with yet another one?

Bottomline, you're wasting good knowledge and time on the wrong cause!
Proving you know more that the mere mortals here doesn't do anybody any
good (except maybe your ego). I suggest you put your energy behind
helping where you can, and shut up when you have nothing to contribute.

Nikos Yannacopoulos

Nikos Yannacopoulos wrote:
There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something, in my
humble opinion. On the other hand, I fail to see the point in going to
such lengths to prove others ignorant, especially when they are frequent
contributors to these newsgroups, and have helped many others - much
more than you have, from what I've seen.

I'll be accused of being Joe Celko himself next Parody is the
sincerest form of flattery.

Your name is one I recognize as someone who does listen and learn, so I
ask you: don't you think it strange that someone who thinks a cursor is
"a little flashing thing on your screen" should be the one giving
advice about sorting data? This guy seems to think the thing he sees in
Access is the 'actual' table. Help us out he does this form/view
have a name, Table DataSheet View or some such? If Rick B could use
this term in his posts in place of the word 'table' then he will help
rather than cofuse.

Of course we are all volunteers who make misstatements and one time or
another; most of us are gracious if not grateful when called on it. As
I'm always saying, "It ain't so much the things we don't know that get
us into trouble. It's the things we know that just ain't so." And
please buy my book DATA AND DATABASES (ISBN 1-55860-432-4).

Tables sorting data? Tables as interfaces? Yes, perhaps even I
(whichever one I am today) can't help.

I don't really care what your real name is, or whether you admit being
the same person behind those other two identities (which I know you
are). I'm just curious why you need all of them. But even that is not of
any major concern.

My intention here was not to defend Rick B, whom I only know in the same
way I know you: through your posts in the NG's. Rick may have been wrong
about the cursor, but let the one who's never been wrong, cast the
first stone. On the other hand, I've seen him be helpful on a number of
occasions, even though he may not have known what the heck the cursor
really is... that's because Rick, and many other ignorants, including
yours truly, have been answering MS-Access questions, which is what
these NG's are about, and have been trying to *answer the question that
was asked*, as opposed to the question they would have liked to have
been asked, because that's what they know, and showing off makes them
feel superior.

My intention, really, weas to say just this: if you like giving lectures
and writing articles on your favourite subject, pls go ahead and do so,
by all means, but do it in the right place. If you have an answer on a
particular question that is asked in the NG's, please do post it,
otherwise spare us. After all, you don't really have that many answers,
you admitted yourself you don't know much about Access; do what you do
best, and leave the rest to those who do it better.

Nikos

P.S. Admittedly, I have learned a couple of things from you, and
probably others have too. The problem is your attittude puts people off,
and doesn't really do justice to your knowledge.

Nikos Yannacopoulos wrote:
Rick may have been wrong
about the cursor, but let the one who's never been wrong, cast the
first stone. On the other hand, I've seen him be helpful on a number of
occasions, even though he may not have known what the heck the cursor
really is... that's because Rick, and many other ignorants, including
yours truly, have been answering MS-Access questions, which is what
these NG's are about, and have been trying to *answer the question that
was asked*, as opposed to the question they would have liked to have
been asked, because that's what they know, and showing off makes them
feel superior.

I don't want to put this (or any) individual off answering questions.
My hope was that they would read up on cursors and learn from it for
next time. It's a shame they were just sarcastic in return but some
people you just can't reach.

He made a misstatement or two about tables, no big deal. I sought to
correct the misstatements and all are free to ignore what I write (I'm
in no doubt that most do). You seem to be saying that this guy has been
helpful in the past and his intentions were good, well then that's nice
but why is that relevant to him making misstatements? I can't stress
this enough: we all make misstatements and it's no big deal (that's why
I wouldn't throw stones).

You raise an interesting topic for me i.e. motivation for posting
replies. Rick B is a helpful guy in these NGs but if is he helping
people because it makes him all warm and fuzzy inside then isn't he
really doing it for himself?

You raise another issue: should we answer the OP's question or
alternatively seek to inform the OP (or respondents) that there is
better way? A classic one in these NGs is storing calculations in a
table. Do you say never do it (ignoring or in ignorance of exceptions)?
Do you say, in these circumstances they would be storing redundant and
potentially misleading (e.g. out of date) data? Or do you answer the
question and tell them how to store their calculations in their table?

Nikos, you are a good guy and I listen to and respect what you say. I'm
not here to exercise my ego or make myself appear superior. I take your
feedback and will try to ensure that matters of ego do not creep in.
You think they have done in the past so then I apologize openly. On a
similar note, I genuinely hope Rick B hasn't been offended by any of
this and extend my regret and apologies to him if he has.

If you are interested I can tell you I'm here to exercise my brain. I
like problem solving with SQL and I work out my own answers to problems
posted here. Some answers I post, some I don't (and many I can't solve
at all!) You are correct: I'm not motivated by directly helping OPs but
maybe if posting my answers makes someone somewhere think about
changing their approach ('Hey maybe *I* should write DDL!') then
perhaps I will have been indirectly helpful. I'm interested in the
subject matter and not the people and personalities involved. Maybe I
am a bad person for this.

I acknowledge that I sometimes seek to correct misstatements and
challenge biased views (while avoiding pointless discussions which have
been done to death before e.g. ADO vs DAO). Yes it's a weakness of
mine, a natural sense of wanting to right wrongs. Do you think I should
stop doing this?