Re: A philosophical newbie issue: catch redundant errors via relationships or programmically?

Ray wrote:
> Anybody have this problem when using an old form on a new database
> Relationship? I'm pretty sure it's a common problem (hint: don't do
> it--always generate a new form if you change the primary keys in a
> database schema / architecture).

Just curious - why call it architecture?

If it is just because it is important - by now you'll understand that I agree with you that it is.
Yet I'd still preserve architecture for something different.

I don't really share your problem though (you got that by now , I'm sure) - it sounds like a 'forms' problem in your CASE tool, in casu access.

> David Cressey wrote:

>> Tony Toews wrote:
>>>> Thanks.  I could not get the compound key to work in Access, which is
>>>> a bit strange (the restriction on whether a foreign key is a duplicate
>>>> or is unique is rather hidden).  After many permutations, I gave up,
>>>> but it could be a peculiarity of Access.
>>>> I could be wrong, but I don't think Access has any particular limitations
>> inthis regard.
>>
>>> I did an Access database using compound keys back in A2.0 in about 1995 or
>>> so.  If anything it works a bit better these days.
>>
>> This is the second time around with Ray and compound keys,  here in
>> comp.databases.theory.
>>
>> A little while ago some of us walked him through setting up a compound key
>> for a junction table in MS Access.  (In spite of the fact that none of us
>> work much with Access).  That worked, according to Ray.
>>
>> Ray may not have recognized this as another instance of exactly the same
>> problem.

Have a nice year Gene, Frank, V.J., Jon, Neo, Troy, Reinier, Doug, Keith, Lynn, rpl, ,Ross, tina, Vladimir, Tegiri, Ed, Alfredo, Joe, Dawn, Bruce, Brian, Ray, Tony(3x), Bob, Rob, Jim, Eric, Roy, Kira, Marshall, Larry, Paul (4x), David (BL, Cressey & Portas), Evan, Cimode, Hugo, Jan, Sybrand & Zorro. It is 2:45 here, just got back from a very nice party.

> I finally figured it out, and it took me a while: Access does indeed
> allow compound primary keys, relationships between compound keys, and
> the like between tables. No problem whatsoever (I generated from
> scratch just such a form, so I know it can be done).

Access++

> However, in my
> particular case the problem is this: if you take an old *FORM* (that
> is, the Access' front end data entry GUI), that has been customized
> for use with artificial non-compound keys (i.e. GUIDs, Long Ints,
> etc), apparently, and I'm almost certain of this, the FORMS (not the
> tables) contain meta-data on 'indices' and the like, that prevent you
> from using the old form with the new compound keys. As proof of this,

Ray, do you mind if I am not interested? Please say no.

[snip]

> Happy New Year! I'm going to bed...

Thank you, same 2u :-)

BTW do you mind if I prefer go to chess?

--
What you see depends on where you stand.