Hi David,

with all due respect, a combo uses a ROW SOURCE, not a RecordSource ...

RecordSource is only for the data that feeds forms and reports -- and
when it comes to a report, it does not matter if the RecordSource is
not updateable...

sorry if I was not clear. Once someone is proficient with Access, they
can deviate from this general guideline, of course. But -- if you are
new, and base forms directly on tables (if the table is Access, then
there is no performance hit as long as the table doesn't have jillions
of records), then you can alleviate a lot of problems.


Warm Regards,
Crystal

remote programming and training

Access Basics
8-part free tutorial that covers essentials in Access
http://www.AccessMVP.com/strive4peace

*
(: have an awesome day
*




David W. Fenton wrote:
strive4peace wrote in
:

I like to use tables for RecordSource if the data is stored in
Access and it is not necessary to filter the records or calculate
anything

I think this is bad advice. For instance, if you base a combo box on
a table, and then replicate the back end, you'll end up seeing the
replication fields in your combo box, because Jet replication
inserts the replication tracking fields at the top of your table
design.

Secondly, if your combo box is based on a table with more fields
than you want to display, you have to set a bunch of colum widths to
0 just to keep them from displaying. If you use a SQL statement, you
retrieve only the fields that are needed.

I would say that in all cases, SQL statements (or the name of a
saved query) is superior, and would recommend against every using a
plain table name as rowsource or recordsource.