Access should allow field names to be alphabetized

When in Table Design please add a way to alphabetize the fieldname list.
It's very tedious to manually move the fields up /down one by one to sort the
fields in the table design. I would like the fields to stay sorted when
viewed in table view. Thank you.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/comm...blesdbde sign

Why? What difference does it make what order the fields are in a table? You
shouldn't be working directly with the tables.

You can always create a query that has the fields in whatever order you
want, and use the query rather than the table.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no private e-mails, please)


"Norman Simoneau from ProSo.Net"
. com wrote in message
...
When in Table Design please add a way to alphabetize the fieldname list.
It's very tedious to manually move the fields up /down one by one to sort
the
fields in the table design. I would like the fields to stay sorted when
viewed in table view. Thank you.

I want the query to automatically have the order when I add "*" for all
fields so I do not have to alphabetize it then too.

"Douglas J. Steele" wrote:

Why? What difference does it make what order the fields are in a table? You
shouldn't be working directly with the tables.

You can always create a query that has the fields in whatever order you
want, and use the query rather than the table.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no private e-mails, please)


"Norman Simoneau from ProSo.Net"
. com wrote in message
...
When in Table Design please add a way to alphabetize the fieldname list.
It's very tedious to manually move the fields up /down one by one to sort
the
fields in the table design. I would like the fields to stay sorted when
viewed in table view. Thank you.

Norman Simoneau from ProSo.Net wrote:
I want the query to automatically have the order when I add "*" for
all fields so I do not have to alphabetize it then too.

But there is absolutely no "real" reason for fields to be in alphabetical order
in a table or query since they should never be used to look at the data.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

since field names are completely subjective, automatic sorting would be a
pain for most developers anyway. i mean, when i'm adding fields to a table,
it might be handy for FirstName to automatically move ahead of LastName, but
do i want MiddleInitial to automatically move *after* LastName - not really!
as Rick and Doug pointed out, field order shouldn't make a difference at the
table or query level - except as a convenience in Design view, where a
*logical* order can help the developer find fields more quickly during
development. but Access can't possibly impose that logical order, because it
will be based on the purpose of the specific table in the specific
database - not to mention the preferences of the specific developer.

hth


"Norman Simoneau from ProSo.Net"
. com wrote in message
...
I want the query to automatically have the order when I add "*" for all
fields so I do not have to alphabetize it then too.

"Douglas J. Steele" wrote:

Why? What difference does it make what order the fields are in a table?
You
shouldn't be working directly with the tables.

You can always create a query that has the fields in whatever order you
want, and use the query rather than the table.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no private e-mails, please)


"Norman Simoneau from ProSo.Net"
. com wrote in message
...
When in Table Design please add a way to alphabetize the fieldname
list.
It's very tedious to manually move the fields up /down one by one to
sort
the
fields in the table design. I would like the fields to stay sorted
when
viewed in table view. Thank you.

=?Utf-8?B?Tm9ybWFuIFNpbW9uZWF1IGZyb20gUHJvU28uTmV0?=
. com wrote in
:

When in Table Design please add a way to alphabetize the fieldname
list.

This request suggest to me that you have a denormalized data
structure, fields named with repeating values, such as MyField01,
MyField02 and so forth. That would indicate a design error on your
part, and thus would negate the value of your suggestion.

I can't think of any reason why alphabetizing fieldnames would be
useful, except in a picklist, perhaps. And in a combo box populated
with a field list, I think it's pretty easy to find the field you
want using the AutoComplete feature.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

I have a vague recollection that having your PrimaryKey as the first (or
close to first?) field has a (beneficial) impact on performance.

Is my memory playing games with me again?



"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
. 97.142...
=?Utf-8?B?Tm9ybWFuIFNpbW9uZWF1IGZyb20gUHJvU28uTmV0?=
. com wrote in
:

When in Table Design please add a way to alphabetize the fieldname
list.

This request suggest to me that you have a denormalized data
structure, fields named with repeating values, such as MyField01,
MyField02 and so forth. That would indicate a design error on your
part, and thus would negate the value of your suggestion.

I can't think of any reason why alphabetizing fieldnames would be
useful, except in a picklist, perhaps. And in a combo box populated
with a field list, I think it's pretty easy to find the field you
want using the AutoComplete feature.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

I haven't heard anything about that in Jet 4, but then again,
who cared about performance with Jet 4?

There were certainly problems about using the DAO methods
to add fields to a table, which led to performance problems with
the last fields in a table, but that was only in one version, and a
long time ago. Didn't the reported performance problems with
field names that had the same starting characters turn out to be
the same problem - an artefact of the test procedure and the DAO
createfield problem?

(david)


"George Nicholson" wrote in message
...
I have a vague recollection that having your PrimaryKey as the first (or
close to first?) field has a (beneficial) impact on performance.

Is my memory playing games with me again?



"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
. 97.142...
=?Utf-8?B?Tm9ybWFuIFNpbW9uZWF1IGZyb20gUHJvU28uTmV0?=
. com wrote in
:

When in Table Design please add a way to alphabetize the fieldname
list.

This request suggest to me that you have a denormalized data
structure, fields named with repeating values, such as MyField01,
MyField02 and so forth. That would indicate a design error on your
part, and thus would negate the value of your suggestion.

I can't think of any reason why alphabetizing fieldnames would be
useful, except in a picklist, perhaps. And in a combo box populated
with a field list, I think it's pretty easy to find the field you
want using the AutoComplete feature.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"George Nicholson" wrote in
:

I have a vague recollection that having your PrimaryKey as the
first (or close to first?) field has a (beneficial) impact on
performance.

Is my memory playing games with me again?

I don't know that your memory is working or not, but I have never
heard any such thing. In a Jet db, the table is physically stored in
PK order, but it wouldn't matter, I think, whether the PK is first,
last or somewhere in the middle.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

On Sep 22, 5:49 pm, "Douglas J. Steele"
wrote:
Why? What difference does it make what order the fields are in a table?

If you want an example where it makes a difference, here's one:

ACC2000: Can't Create Relationship with Multiple-Field Primary Key
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/208353
"The order of the primary key fields in Design view of the table is
different from the order of the fields in the PrimaryKey index."

Of course, if you create your tables using SQL DDL there's no issue...

You
shouldn't be working directly with the tables.

In Design view? So you agree that SQL DDL is the way to go? ;-)

Jamie

--