Here's yet another question: How can I return the same number of records in
my form that I have in Table1? That is: Table1 has 1238 unique records.
Of the queries, the one for Approver has the fewest results -- 629. When I
create the form, based on separate queries for Developer, Originator, and
Approver, the form only shows 629 records. What's the deal with that? I
need to return all 1238 records in my form.

TIA

"zSplash" wrote in message
...
So, it's slowly becoming clear! The light at the end of a l-o-o-n-n-n-g
tunnel (probably excruciatingly long for you). Thanks, Doug. You've been
the model of patience.

Now, my next question: In creating forms, is it better design to use
queries or tables? In this case, is it better to use Table1 or a query
based on Table1 when I re-design my form?

TIA

"Douglas J. Steele" wrote in message
...
You don't set the ControlSource property for text boxes to SQL
statements.

You set the RecordSource of the form to the query, and set the text
box's
ControlSource to the name of a field in that query.

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


"zSplash" wrote in message
...
Okay. I've done that (and named the qTest). And I've created a form
with
textboxes. So, for example, to pull up the data about the first
record's
originator's lastname, I've put the following in the Control Source
property
of the textbox:
SELECT [qTest]![Last] from [qTest] where
[qTest]![nameType]="Originator"
But, when I open the form, that textbox shows an error:
Name#?
What's wrong?

TIA

"Douglas J. Steele" wrote in
message
...
You join them in a query, linking the ID field in Table1 to the
corresponding ID field in Table2.


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


"zSplash" wrote in message
...
Thanks for the patience for dealing with such a dense person, Doug.

So, I have Table1 and Table2 (excepting that my Table2 has a new
pkID,
First, Last, and DOB, in addition to your Table1 data). How do I
now
"connect" Table1 with Table2?

TIA

"Douglas J. Steele" wrote in
message
...
I may have confused you.

If you've got Table1 and Table2 as I described them, that's
essentially
all
you need.

I'd suggested an extension of that if you had a Person table:

Id Person
1 Tom Jones
2 Mary Brown
3 John Doe
4 Jill Roe
5 Mary Smith
6 John Brown

Then, instead of Table2 being

Id NameType Person
1 Originator Tom Jones
1 Developer Mary Brown
1 Approver John Doe
2 Originator Mary Brown
2 Developer Jill Roe
2 Approver Mary Smith
3 Originator John Brown
3 Developer John Brown
3 Approver Mary Smith

it would be

Id NameType Person
1 Originator 1
1 Developer 2
1 Approver 3
2 Originator 2
2 Developer 4
2 Approver 5
3 Originator 6
3 Developer 6
3 Approver 5

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


"zSplash" wrote in message
...
Thanks so much, Doug. I have tried to re-do my database to meet
your
suggestions. I have a Table1 and Table 2, as you've outlined.
Now,
I
need
direction on how to make a third table "that resolves the
intersection
of
the two tables". I just don't quite get the foreign key deal.

TIA

"Douglas J. Steele" wrote in
message
...
Realistically, a primary key is just an index, and any index
can
have
up
to
10 separate fields in it.

Which design are you asking about "do I need a foreign key in
Names
table"?
Are you talking about my comment at the end ("Depending on your
actual
requirements, you could have a Person table, so that all you
store
in
Table2
is the PersonId."), or are you talking about Table2 in the
example?

Table2 must point to Table1, so yes, it must have a foreign key
in
it.
If
you're using "Names table" to refer to what I called "a Person
table",
then
no: that table wouldn't have a foreign key in it. In essence
you've
got
a
many-to-many relationship between Table1 and the Names table.
You
create
a
third table that resolves the intersection of the two tables,
and
that
intersection table consists of foreign keys pointing back to
the
other
2
tables.

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


"zSplash" wrote in message
...
Thanks, Doug. I didn't know a primary key could be a
combination
of
several fields -- I thought it had to be a number field? And
if
I
use
your design, do I need a foreign key in Names table to
connect
(somehow)
to the pk in the Projects table?

"Douglas J. Steele" wrote
in
message
...
Actually, you need at least one additional field in the
second
table:
the
link back to the first table.

Let's assume you currently have Table1:

Id Desc Originator Developer
Approver
1 Project A Tom Jones Mary Brown John Doe
2 Project B Mary Brown Jill Roe Mary
Smith
3 Project C John Brown John Brown Mary Smith

with Id as the Primary Key.

You'd change Table1 to:

Id Desc
1 Project A
2 Project B
3 Project C

still with Id as the Primary Key.

and Table2 would be:

Id NameType Person
1 Originator Tom Jones
1 Developer Mary Brown
1 Approver John Doe
2 Originator Mary Brown
2 Developer Jill Roe
2 Approver Mary Smith
3 Originator John Brown
3 Developer John Brown
3 Approver Mary Smith

with the combination of Id and NameType as the Primary Key.
(If
you
can
have more than NameType for a particular item, you'd need
more
for
the
PK)

Depending on your actual requirements, you could have a
Person
table,
so
that all you store in Table2 is the PersonId.

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


"zSplash" wrote in
message
...
Thanks, Doug, but I just don't get it. If I have a single
table,
with
a
col for Nametype, a col for First, and a col for Last, how
can
I
ever
have more than one name per record?

st.

"Douglas J. Steele"
wrote
in
message
...
No, I don't think you should have a separate table for
each
name
type.
Have a single name table with an additional column of
NameType.

That'll make queries like "Let me know all records that
John
Brown
is
involved with", "Let me know those records for which Mary
Smith
was
the
Approver" and "Let me know all records where the same
person
was
the
Developer and the Originator" much, much simpler.

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


"zSplash" wrote in
message
...
Thanks, Doug, for responding.
By "create a second table linked to that first table with
one
row
for
each name" that I should have individual tables for each
nameType?
That is leave the mainTable with the common information,
and
then
create a table for nameOriginator, a table for
nameApprover,
a
table
nameDeveloper, etc, with nameData for each of those
nameTypes?

"Douglas J. Steele"
wrote
in
message ...
You'd better explain your precise need, but in general,
you
wouldn't
put multiple names on a single record.

Typically when you have multiple names on a single
record,
it
means
you've got field names like "Originator", "Approver",
"Developer"
etc. That's not a good idea: you're hiding data in the
field
names.

Instead, you should keep the common information in the
one
table,
and
create a second table linked to that first table with
one
row
for
each name.

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


"zSplash" wrote
in
message
...
My database needs to track several names (first and
last)
for
each
record. My initial database had all the names
(first/last)
in
the
main table. In an earlier request for help
searching
for
lastnames, someone suggested that I put all the names
in
a
separate
Names table with a nameType comboBox. Now that I've
modified
my
database to do that, I see that with that design I can
only
have
one
name per record. (To enter names, I select nameType,
and
then
enter
first/last names for that nameType. I have no way of
entering/adding the first/lastnames for the other
nameTypes.
Each
record has 5 or 6 first/last names to track. If they
are
all
in
one
Names table, as suggested, I can only hold one nameType
in
each
record.

Can someone please suggest another way to solve my
problem?

TIA