I previously posted about data shifting between records in my Access 2000
MDB with a SQL Server 7 back end, using ODBC linked tables. Every once in a
while, data from one record mysteriously appears in another record. This
incident happened again, this time adding a new wrinkle to the situation.
There are two tables -- TableA and TableB -- which have a one-to-one
relationship with each other, joined on TableA's autonumber primary key
field to TableB's long int primary key field.
And there are two forms that are used by the users. Form1 is bound to TableA
alone. Form2 is bound to TableA joined with TableB.
TableB is the table that has the problem with data shifting. However, in the
most recent episode of the data shifting, the record in question was only
edited using Form1 (which is only bound to TableA), and not Form2 (which is
bound to both TableA and TableB). Thus, it would not have been possible for
the data to shift through user intervention, or even though anything within
the form, but only through some other mechanism.
A record is created by the user clicking a New button and completing a few
fields. Code in the back end then creates the TableA record with the
user-provided data, getting the new autonumber value. It then creates a
sister record in TableB, using the new autonumber value as the PK for the
TableB record, and completing two fields in TableB that are required, based
on user-entered data.
In this case, as noted, after the record was created, according to the
history logs, the user only used Form1, which only accesses TableA. Yet
somehow the two fields that were completed by default when the TableB record
was created in the back end were changed to contain data from a different
record. Since TableB was never accessed by the user of either record, I
don't see how that could be possible except through some glitch in the back
end or ODBC driver.
TableB It contains 20 memo type fields ("text" type in SQL Server) that are
used to store RTF data, along with about 30 or so other fields. It could be
that the large number of memo fields is creating a problem?
Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Neil
MDB with a SQL Server 7 back end, using ODBC linked tables. Every once in a
while, data from one record mysteriously appears in another record. This
incident happened again, this time adding a new wrinkle to the situation.
There are two tables -- TableA and TableB -- which have a one-to-one
relationship with each other, joined on TableA's autonumber primary key
field to TableB's long int primary key field.
And there are two forms that are used by the users. Form1 is bound to TableA
alone. Form2 is bound to TableA joined with TableB.
TableB is the table that has the problem with data shifting. However, in the
most recent episode of the data shifting, the record in question was only
edited using Form1 (which is only bound to TableA), and not Form2 (which is
bound to both TableA and TableB). Thus, it would not have been possible for
the data to shift through user intervention, or even though anything within
the form, but only through some other mechanism.
A record is created by the user clicking a New button and completing a few
fields. Code in the back end then creates the TableA record with the
user-provided data, getting the new autonumber value. It then creates a
sister record in TableB, using the new autonumber value as the PK for the
TableB record, and completing two fields in TableB that are required, based
on user-entered data.
In this case, as noted, after the record was created, according to the
history logs, the user only used Form1, which only accesses TableA. Yet
somehow the two fields that were completed by default when the TableB record
was created in the back end were changed to contain data from a different
record. Since TableB was never accessed by the user of either record, I
don't see how that could be possible except through some glitch in the back
end or ODBC driver.
TableB It contains 20 memo type fields ("text" type in SQL Server) that are
used to store RTF data, along with about 30 or so other fields. It could be
that the large number of memo fields is creating a problem?
Any thoughts or ideas would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Neil
Comment