"Arvin Meyer [MVP]" wrote in message
...

"KenSheridan via AccessMonster.com" u51882@uwe wrote in message
news:a25b114e44fa5@uwe...

Arvin's solution, while seeding the start number, has the disadvantage,
as
Keith has pointed out, of not guaranteeing an unbroken sequence (or a
sequence at all for that matter), for which an autonumber should never be
used, an autonumber being intended to ensure arbitrary unique values and
nothing else (which is presumably why Microsoft changed it from 'counter'
after version 2).

If an incremental autonumber is used, unless a number is deleted, or
someone reseeds the field again with a higher number, there will not be an
unbroken sequence. If you mean that a number can be "lost" by starting and
discarding a record, yes that can happen, but that's the same as deleting
a record.


IMHO dirtying a record but not saving it is not the same as deleting a saved
one, and users are going to wonder why the sequence is broken when they
haven't deleted anything. In fact, they're not just going to wonder but
they're going to complain quite loudly!

I also seem to remember reading somewhere, although I can't provide any
evidence, that even if you don't force Access to discard an AutoNumber, it
is still possible to have a broken sequence in an incremental AutoNumber.

FWIW I don't allow deletions in systems that require sequential numbering,
rather I give the option to mark a record as "deleted" and then query
accordingly.

Keith.