I'm recieving the following error on trying to run an append query in access.
Microsoft Office Access set .... and it didnt't add... 779280 records(s) due to validation rule violations.
If I choose to run the query anyways, nothing actually happens.
To give some context, I'm simply trying to copy a populated field, consisting of values similar to "16-2009-02, 34-2010-02, et cetera" to another currently unpopulated field.
The fields themselves have no set validation rules, and both have the standard text field options.
I'm hoping to be able to simply remove those hyphens, and fix the issue. But I guess that's what I'm not sure about, are those hyphens actually a problem?
Running SP3 w/ Access 2003.
Thanks in advance!
Does the destination field have Allow Zero Length set to false or Required set to true? If it does, it is possible that some of the data from the source column is null or is set to an empty string. In addition, you should verify that the field sizes on the new column is equal to larger than the source column.
EDIT On appending from one table to another, you must ensure that you populate the columns that makeup the primary key of the destination table. Thus, from your screenshot, you need to include the loggerid and datetime columns from the "Log ID" table. Now, if there are collisions, Access should tell you how many rows generated collisions and let you append the ones that did not collide with the uniqueness restriction on loggerid and datetime
Make sure the target column is not indexed or, if it is, that duplicates are allowed. Access often makes indexing decisions on your behalf and sometimes they are not correct.
Related
In MS Access 2016 I have a table named Master that periodically needs to gets updated with ‘updated’ data from a table named NewData. Each table has the same fields, except Master has one additional field named OTHER_SOURCES (explained further down). They each have an indexed unique id field named EVENT_ID. I’ve built an update query where the tables are joined one-to-one on the EVENT_ID field. In this query I have the fields in Master getting updated to the new values from the same fields in NewData if the TIMESTAMP field value is different. If the TIMESTAMP values haven’t changed, then those records do not get updated. This part is pretty straightforward and works fine.
However, I have end users that may make occasional changes to the values in the SIZE field of Master that need to be preserved and not overwritten with updated values from NEW_DATA. When a user makes a change in SIZE field, he documents the change with information obtained from other sources, which is stored in the extra field I mentioned earlier: OTHER_SOURCES. Here’s what I need to do, and I just can’t figure it out. Whenever a user has made a change to the SIZE field for a record, I need the update query to not override that value in the SIZE field, but still update the values in all the other fields (again, assuming the TIMESTAMP values are different between the two tables). It seems I need to use an IIF statement, but I’m thinking it needs to be done in VBA where I’m a bit of a hack. See screenshots. I greatly appreciate any help you can offer.
enter image description here
enter image description here
You can still proceed with the update, but update it to the same value as its previous value:
SET SIZE= IIF(nz(OTHER_SOURCES,'')<>'', MASTER.Size, NEW_DATA.Size)
This assumes that anything present in the MASTER.OTHER_SOURCES column indicates that the user has changed MASTER.Size. Note that MASTER.Size will never be updated from NEW_DATA.Size until someone (end user) removes MASTER.OTHER_SOURCES.
I am somewhat new to MS Access and I have inherited an application with a table that uses this Lookup feature to replace a code with a value from a query to another table.
When I first used this table and exported it to Excel for analysis, I somehow got the base ID number (or whatever it would be called) rather than the translated lookup value. Now, when I do this, I get the translated text. The biggest problem is that while the base value is unique, the translated values are not, so I cannot use them for the work I am doing.
Can someone explain how to get the underlying ID value rather than the lookup value? Is there some setting I can use or some way to reference the field upon which the lookup is based. When I query the ID field, I get the lookup value. I know that the first time I did this, the spreadsheet contained the ID number not the text.
For now, I created a copy of the table and removed the lookup information from this copy, but I know I did not run into this when I did this the first time.
Thanks.
When you export to Excel, leave Export data with formatting and layout unchecked. This will create a spreadsheet with raw data values in Lookup fields.
Export settings image
I have a SQL Server that is ODBC into my Access which is being utilized as my front end. I created a column in SQL with a BIT data type and created a checkbox with the yes/no data type that uses my SQL Column as its control source. When I go into my form and try to change anything in there and update my tables, I get a writing error and it wont let me append the updates I'm trying to make. As soon as I delete the bit data type, and the check box, then I am able to again append information to my form. Does anyone know a solution or a way I could utilize the Boolean check boxes to report to my SQL Database so that I could track progress of an order, but still be able to append my records? Also if anyone knows why this is happening I would appreciate the information just for my own notes and understanding.
this image shows the column created in SQL Server
This image shows what it looks like in the ODBC table in Access
This image shows the control source I picked which is from a query that utilizes the names of the form comboboxes, text boxes, and hopefully check boxes
This is image shows what happens after I try to update and and close
Thanks
haven't done this for a long time, but the problem could be related to the numbers that are stored. yes/no in access = -1/0, in sqlsrvr = 1/0 (or similar). you could use an INT field in sqlsrvr which will then store whatever access sends (-1 or 0), or keep the BIT but don't use yes/no in access - create a custom yes/no table where yes=1 and no=0 (or whatever BIT needs) and use the custom table as a lookup table for that field which, when updated will send the appropriate value. hope that's all relevant and makes sense.
So I have been messing around with this and after a few other problems running through SQL, Cabinet Vision (our drafting software with a ancient access database) and crystal reports I came to realize that Access cannot accept null values.
So in my SQL Bit data type column I set the default value as 0 and didn't allow nulls. now it records all my check boxes as true or false. and I no longer have a write conflict.
This most commonly arises when a db is developed in Access and at some later date the tables are exported via ODBC to SQLServer. The Checkbox controls on the Access forms were probably placed there using the 'Available Fields' button on the Access 'Design' ribbon. Before getting into complicated solutions with T-SQL modifications to metadata etc, try simply deleting the checkbox control from the problem Access form. Insert an unbound checkbox to replace it, then use the the Properties dialog to set the relevant SQLServer field as the control source for that checkbox. Usually works.
I am designing a form at work where I need to be able to set "Properties" for a large number of (accounting) "structures". I have a "Value" field where the user enters the value that property must take and then I have 1 column for every structure where the user must be able to check / uncheck each property for each structure. Also, I need to be able to suggest checkbox values (aka mapping of properties to structures) to the user so that he/she doesn't have to manually click all the checkboxes that will always need to be ticked. Finally, the number of properties (rows) and the number of structures (columns) should not be assumed to be fixed though I don't want the user to be able to modify it himself. I just want it so that a dev (probably me) doesn't have a hard time adding or removing structures.
For now I have used a local table where each structure is a column and I have hardcoded my properties (which is good). However, I am not sure that using a local table is good design. We normally avoid having forms and tables in the same Access DB to separate forms and data. Also, I'm wondering if there is an elegant solution that I am missing. There will be at least 10-15 structures and 11 properties, that would make 110 (11*10) checkboxes to handle so I cannot do it manually (i.e. create 110 checkboxes and check 110 values everytime...).
Here you can see what that part of the form looks like for now.
I know this will be a chattier question but I really need a design check on this so here are a few questions that I try to make as general and objective as possible:
In Access, how is it possible to create a matrix of controls where 1 column contains a fixed (but changeable by a dev) number of properties, a "value" field that can take text and then 10+ columns with Yes/No values ?
Is it possible to do it without a local table ?
VBA is perfectly admissible.
Thanks.
In Access, how is it possible to create a matrix of controls where 1 column contains a fixed (but changeable by a dev) number of properties, a "value" field that can take text and then 10+ columns with Yes/No values ?
I've never seen any VBA code that does what you describe. VB6 allowed the creation of "control arrays" to logically group controls (and work around some limitations on the number of controls on a form), but I've never seen that mentioned for VBA.
Is it possible to do it without a local table?
Is it possible? Maybe, since you can modify a form via code by opening it in Design View and using CreateControl() to add controls.
Is it practical? Probably not, because the "Access Specifications" section of Access Help mentions the following limit...
"Number of controls and sections that you can add over the lifetime of the form or report: 754"
..so it sounds like code that repeatedly modifies a form could very well break after a while.
My recommendation would be to create a temporary table, use it, and then discard it. If you're worried about front-end bloat then you could create the temporary table in a temporary .accdb file and then link to it.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems pretty easy to me.
Make each structure a record.
Then in another table, make each property a record with a 1-many relationship with the structure table. So, each structure will have many properties.
Then a form based on the structure with a sub-form based on it's properties.
Default property values can be set in the table structure.
And of course the tables can be linked from another DB.
In Access, how is it possible to create a matrix of controls where 1 column contains a fixed (but changeable by a dev) number of properties, a "value" field that can take text and then 10+ columns with Yes/No values?
I'm still not certain why you want multiple bits/booleans in a single column, but you might be able to utilize bit logic and long integer column. VBA does something like this with its constants. For instance, in a MsgBox, you make your type = vbCritical + vbYesNo. Its result is in an integer value that VBA interprets to make a Critcal MsgBox with only a Yes and a No button. The reason this works is because the value of each constant is so distinct that any summation with like constants results in a unique value that can be de-parsed. It's fairly elegant from a user perspective, but I'd hate to do the math on the back-end to make such a function work.
It might be better to maintain a separate table of available properties and/or property sets and build / maintain your property sheet that way. You could assign property sets as well as individual properties to particular controls. You could also specify in either table whether there is a default value for that property and/or what that value is.
It is also likely that you do not need that many bits. I'd be happy to narrow my answer to your situation if you could update your question with more detail regarding the nature of your bit need(s).
Is it possible to do it without a local table?
You might be able to create a DAO.Recordset dynamically in Access.
It might be better to adjust your properties table(s) (see above) to be a permanent table in one of your databases rather than re-populating the same data every time.
You could take more of a master/detail approach, combining your bit fields into a string description describing the boxes which are checked.
For example, if you have a structure named 'structure1', value 100, and 5 condition bits set, you could have one string column with text 'cond1, cond2, cond7, cond8, cond9' and then another button allowing them to modify that set of conditions for that single structure.
You'd have fewer checkboxes, anyways.
The only thing I can think of equivalent to 'a matrix of controls where 1 column contains a fixed (but changeable by a dev) number of properties' is an editable query result set.
You'll need a table for your structure -> default conditions set, if nothing else, but it doesn't have to be in the same db as the front end.
HTH
MS Access appears to support nulls in code, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to enter a null directly in a table. This is maddening because once a field has had a figure entered in it, it can never be deleted/set to null. Normally, allowing zero length strings would take care of this, but Access treats the XML export of a null and a zero length string differently. A null eliminates the associated XML tag and a zero length string sends an empty tag.
Does setting the "Allow zero length string" option in the table definition help? It may force an empty string to be interpreted as NULL.
Are you talking about needing to do it in Datasheet view? If you needed to do it in an update query, you can do it like this:
UPDATE test SET test.test = Null;
press ctrl-0 and a null is inserted.
Deleting all the characters will work, but Access is a bit fickle. Hitting backspace or delete will not work unless there are characters in the field. I find it is best to enter a few characters, select all, and hit delete, change focus and change the record. After all the above, if you run a query looking for "is null" the record will be found.
I'm actually looking for a way for a layperson to do the entry directly in a table. In MSSQL you can simply press ctrl-0 and a null is inserted. Deleting all the characters doesn't appear to work. Instead of a null, you are left with an empty string. They are not treated the same by Access for export purposes.
I think what I'm going to wind up doing is creating an xslt file to use during export that eliminates empty tags. That way the user can't really tell the difference.
It sure would be nice, though, to be able to key in a null.
Ok, I don't think this is an easily solvable problem and my original question was a little off target. The problem isn't so much with nulls, although they are involved, as with the manner in which the table was originally created. If you use an xsd file to create your tables you plan on exporting, something happens under the hood in Access that causes those fields to be treated a little differently than fields created with the editors.
The only solution I found was to create a new field in the table, rename the old field, copy the data from the old field to the new field and delete the old field.
After doing that, then blank fields that had data in them at one point are no longer included in the XML output. It's probably not the best way to do this, and I still don't know exactly why it's happening, but at least I can get past the issue.
Just delete all characters in the column and access will insert a null value for you if the coumn allows it.