I have an Access db with several ODBC linked ORACLE tables. These
tables have multiple-field PK's. The tables work just fine in many
diff types of queries including unmatched queries that are created
manually without using the UMQ Wizard. The problem/question, however,
involves using these tables in an UMQ Wizard. At the point in the
wizard where it asks for "What piece of information is in both
tables?" and it lists the fields from the 2 tables, it fails to
include the FIRST field of the multi-field PK, which is actually the
field that is needed for it. I looked around and found this Microsoft
KB #209564 which reads, in part: "Before an index can be used, queries
with restrictions on multiple-field (compound) indexes must restrict
at least the first field of the index. You can, however, also use
adjacent fields in the index (up to 10 fields).". Is this why what I
describe above is happening? Is there any way around it besides
creating the query not using the wizard? Or is it some other issue,
perhaps?
It is not a huge deal, since the query can be created manually but it
seemed strange to me and I would really like to know what is causing
this behavior.
Thanks, as always, for any help...
Ellen
tables have multiple-field PK's. The tables work just fine in many
diff types of queries including unmatched queries that are created
manually without using the UMQ Wizard. The problem/question, however,
involves using these tables in an UMQ Wizard. At the point in the
wizard where it asks for "What piece of information is in both
tables?" and it lists the fields from the 2 tables, it fails to
include the FIRST field of the multi-field PK, which is actually the
field that is needed for it. I looked around and found this Microsoft
KB #209564 which reads, in part: "Before an index can be used, queries
with restrictions on multiple-field (compound) indexes must restrict
at least the first field of the index. You can, however, also use
adjacent fields in the index (up to 10 fields).". Is this why what I
describe above is happening? Is there any way around it besides
creating the query not using the wizard? Or is it some other issue,
perhaps?
It is not a huge deal, since the query can be created manually but it
seemed strange to me and I would really like to know what is causing
this behavior.
Thanks, as always, for any help...
Ellen