I couldn't agree more, Roger, but "need" can in some cases be a legal
requirement. Things might have changed since I retired, though knowing how
slowly the wheels of legislation grind I doubt it, but in my own field of
work I believe it was a legal requirement that all applications made to the
authority in our quasi-judicial capacity must be numbered sequentially and
immutably in order of date of receipt, and registered as such. The law may
be behind the technology, but its still the law until changed, I'm afraid.

Ken Sheridan
Stafford, England

Roger Carlson wrote:
This is perhaps slightly off-topic, but since your question has been
thoroughly answered (with 4 separate solutions, no less) I'd like to
challenge the necessity of having an *unbroken* sequential number -- or a
sequential number at all.

Sequential numbering is really a paper-based security system. Sales Order,
Purchase Order, Checks, and the like are numbered sequentially to make sure
that someone doesn't steal one from the middle of a pile of them.
Sequential numbers highlight this immediately because it's easy to see when
a number has been skipped.

However, when your system is electronic, paper-based security is as useful
as a screen door in a submarine. It does no good, causes other design
complications, and might possibly cause harm.

I know there are customers who believe they "need" sequential numbering for
some reason, but I always try to dissuade them. Sometimes it works
sometimes it doesn't, but I try.

Even though my sample was suggested as a good solution, to my mind Arvin's
suggestion of an Autonumber field is really the best solution and forget the
sequential gaps. They aren't worth worrying over.

Hello,

[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
Putting Twitter Realtime Search to Work
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials...-realtime.aspx

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com