Discerpancy in number of records

[rfdjr1@optonline.net]

I'm using Access 2000. I have a raher simple database of my CD collection, with
just three fields, Artist, Album Title and Type of Music. While going to update
it today with a couple new CD's, I noticed that if I sort alphabetically by
Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows 393 records.
Any idea why this would be? And I know of at least two titles that don't show
up when I look for them under the Artist sort. There's obviously a few more
missing. Thanks.

[Larry Linson]

Re: Discerpancy in number of records


<rfdjr1@optonli ne.netwrote in message
news:krah24lbrf i0mo2dj65agmg0s 334eps6pm@4ax.c om...

I'm using Access 2000. I have a raher simple database of my CD collection,
with
just three fields, Artist, Album Title and Type of Music. While going to
update
it today with a couple new CD's, I noticed that if I sort alphabetically
by
Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows 393
records.
Any idea why this would be? And I know of at least two titles that don't
show
up when I look for them under the Artist sort. There's obviously a few
more
missing. Thanks.

Access 2000 is "out of support", but the Service Packs and other updates are
still available -- my first step would be to look at "Help | About Microsoft
Access 2000" and make certain that it is at the SP3 level; then go to the
Microsoft site for Office update and see if there are later updates.

If you are up-to-date, or if you still experience this after bringing your
Access up to date, go into Query Builder, on the leftmost part of the
toolbar, click the dropdown, choose SQL view, copy the SQL for both querys,
paste it into a response to this thread, and maybe someone will have a good
suggestion.

Larry Linson

[rfdjr1@optonline.net]

Re: Discerpancy in number of records

On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:02:14 GMT, "Larry Linson" <bouncer@localh ost.notwrote:

>
><rfdjr1@optonl ine.netwrote in message
>news:krah24lbr fi0mo2dj65agmg0 s334eps6pm@4ax. com...

>I'm using Access 2000. I have a raher simple database of my CD collection,
>with
>just three fields, Artist, Album Title and Type of Music. While going to
>update
>it today with a couple new CD's, I noticed that if I sort alphabetically
>by
>Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows 393
>records.
>Any idea why this would be? And I know of at least two titles that don't
>show
>up when I look for them under the Artist sort. There's obviously a few
>more
>missing. Thanks.

>
>Access 2000 is "out of support", but the Service Packs and other updates are
>still available -- my first step would be to look at "Help | About Microsoft
>Access 2000" and make certain that it is at the SP3 level; then go to the
>Microsoft site for Office update and see if there are later updates.
>
>If you are up-to-date, or if you still experience this after bringing your
>Access up to date, go into Query Builder, on the leftmost part of the
>toolbar, click the dropdown, choose SQL view, copy the SQL for both querys,
>paste it into a response to this thread, and maybe someone will have a good
>suggestion.
>
Larry Linson
>

Thanks. I checked "Help | About and see nothing at all mentioning SP3 or
anything else. Just the version number, copyright info and Product ID number. Am
I looking in the right spot?

[rfdjr1@optonline.net]

Re: Discerpancy in number of records

On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:02:14 GMT, "Larry Linson" <bouncer@localh ost.notwrote:

>
><rfdjr1@optonl ine.netwrote in message
>news:krah24lbr fi0mo2dj65agmg0 s334eps6pm@4ax. com...

>I'm using Access 2000. I have a raher simple database of my CD collection,
>with
>just three fields, Artist, Album Title and Type of Music. While going to
>update
>it today with a couple new CD's, I noticed that if I sort alphabetically
>by
>Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows 393
>records.
>Any idea why this would be? And I know of at least two titles that don't
>show
>up when I look for them under the Artist sort. There's obviously a few
>more
>missing. Thanks.

>
>Access 2000 is "out of support", but the Service Packs and other updates are
>still available -- my first step would be to look at "Help | About Microsoft
>Access 2000" and make certain that it is at the SP3 level; then go to the
>Microsoft site for Office update and see if there are later updates.
>
>If you are up-to-date, or if you still experience this after bringing your
>Access up to date, go into Query Builder, on the leftmost part of the
>toolbar, click the dropdown, choose SQL view, copy the SQL for both querys,
>paste it into a response to this thread, and maybe someone will have a good
>suggestion.
>
Larry Linson
>

Okay, I went to Microsoft's site and first downloaded SP1a as I apparently had
no SP's installed. I installed that then installed SP3 so all is up to date (the
SP version shows up now in Help | About), but the problem with the number of
records still exists. Now I can't find Query Builder anywhere in any drop down
menus or on the tool bar. I looked it up in Help and it tells me to open a
document in Design View. I tried that and get a warning that I can't do that
because the security setting in my browser is set too high and to lower it or
see my system administrator. I AM the administrator. This is my home computer.
What browser are they talking about? I only know about web browsers i.e.
Internet Explorer. What would this have to do with Access? I'm totally confused.
Bottom line is I just can't figure out why, with one sort I get one number of
records and with another sort, I get a different number.

[Larry Linson]

Re: Discerpancy in number of records

With the database window open, click the Queries tab, highlight the Query,
and click the Design button -- that screen is Query Builder. In (design
view in) Query Builder, there should be a toolbar just above the design
grid, and by default, the leftmost button will allow you to go from Design
View (a "tool" icon) to Query View (a datasheet icon) to SQL View (the
letters SQL). Some later versions (Access 2002 and 2003) also have Pivot
Chart and Pivot Table view in the dropdown, but I can't remember if Access
2000 has those or not -- but they are not pertinent to our discussion.

In SQL View, you can highlight and copy (Ctrl-C) the SQL and paste it into a
post... if you do that for both the Query that gives you all the records and
the Query that gives you fewer, then someone can take a look -- it may not
be me, as I don't have Access 2000 installed on an active PC.

I don't know what you are experiencing about "browser" because there's no
web browser involved with a normal Access MDB.


<rfdjr1@optonli ne.netwrote in message
news:qjhh2498rk 018foscf2ao6pr2 svar36moq@4ax.c om...

On Mon, 12 May 2008 21:02:14 GMT, "Larry Linson" <bouncer@localh ost.not>
wrote:
>

>>
>><rfdjr1@opton line.netwrote in message
>>news:krah24lb rfi0mo2dj65agmg 0s334eps6pm@4ax .com...

>>I'm using Access 2000. I have a raher simple database of my CD
>>collection,
>>with
>>just three fields, Artist, Album Title and Type of Music. While going to
>>update
>>it today with a couple new CD's, I noticed that if I sort alphabetically
>>by
>>Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows 393
>>records.
>>Any idea why this would be? And I know of at least two titles that
>>don't
>>show
>>up when I look for them under the Artist sort. There's obviously a few
>>more
>>missing. Thanks.

>>
>>Access 2000 is "out of support", but the Service Packs and other updates
>>are
>>still available -- my first step would be to look at "Help | About
>>Microsoft
>>Access 2000" and make certain that it is at the SP3 level; then go to the
>>Microsoft site for Office update and see if there are later updates.
>>
>>If you are up-to-date, or if you still experience this after bringing your
>>Access up to date, go into Query Builder, on the leftmost part of the
>>toolbar, click the dropdown, choose SQL view, copy the SQL for both
>>querys,
>>paste it into a response to this thread, and maybe someone will have a
>>good
>>suggestion.
>>
>Larry Linson
>>

Okay, I went to Microsoft's site and first downloaded SP1a as I apparently
had
no SP's installed. I installed that then installed SP3 so all is up to
date (the
SP version shows up now in Help | About), but the problem with the number
of
records still exists. Now I can't find Query Builder anywhere in any drop
down
menus or on the tool bar. I looked it up in Help and it tells me to open a
document in Design View. I tried that and get a warning that I can't do
that
because the security setting in my browser is set too high and to lower it
or
see my system administrator. I AM the administrator. This is my home
computer.
What browser are they talking about? I only know about web browsers i.e.
Internet Explorer. What would this have to do with Access? I'm totally
confused.
Bottom line is I just can't figure out why, with one sort I get one number
of
records and with another sort, I get a different number.
>

[David W. Fenton]

Re: Discerpancy in number of records

rfdjr1@optonlin e.net wrote in
news:krah24lbrf i0mo2dj65agmg0s 334eps6pm@4ax.c om:

if I sort alphabetically by
Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows
393 records. Any idea why this would be?

This is a classic symptom of a corrupted index. Make a backup copy
of your data MDB and compact it. If the index was corrupted, that
will be reported to you and you'll have to recreate it.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[rfdjr1@optonline.net]

Re: Discerpancy in number of records

On 13 May 2008 03:22:36 GMT, "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet@dfen ton.com.invalid >
wrote:

>rfdjr1@optonli ne.net wrote in
>news:krah24lbr fi0mo2dj65agmg0 s334eps6pm@4ax. com:
>

>if I sort alphabetically by
>Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows
>393 records. Any idea why this would be?

>
>This is a classic symptom of a corrupted index. Make a backup copy
>of your data MDB and compact it. If the index was corrupted, that
>will be reported to you and you'll have to recreate it.

Thanks. By compact it, do you mean zip it with something like Winzip? Also, if
this index is corrupted, how do I recreate it? I am a very casual user of Access
and only have a few simple databases for some collections I have and I don't
know the ins and outs of the program. Thanks again.

[Mark]

Re: Discerpancy in number of records

By "Compact", he means a built in functionality of Access.

From the Menu

Tools

Database Utilities

Compact and Repair database

The compact and repair will try to repair any corrupt indices.

Regards,

Mark

<rfdjr1@optonli ne.netwrote in message
news:piuj24p8qb 3ors3j2kt1mi9t6 4uitmoq07@4ax.c om...

On 13 May 2008 03:22:36 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<XXXusenet@dfen ton.com.invalid >
wrote:
>

>>rfdjr1@optonl ine.net wrote in
>>news:krah24lb rfi0mo2dj65agmg 0s334eps6pm@4ax .com:
>>

>>if I sort alphabetically by
>>Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows
>>393 records. Any idea why this would be?

>>
>>This is a classic symptom of a corrupted index. Make a backup copy
>>of your data MDB and compact it. If the index was corrupted, that
>>will be reported to you and you'll have to recreate it.

>
Thanks. By compact it, do you mean zip it with something like Winzip?
Also, if
this index is corrupted, how do I recreate it? I am a very casual user of
Access
and only have a few simple databases for some collections I have and I
don't
know the ins and outs of the program. Thanks again.
>

[rfdjr1@optonline.net]

Re: Discerpancy in number of records

On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:28:45 +0100, "Mark" <mreed1975@btin ternet.comwrote :

>By "Compact", he means a built in functionality of Access.
>
>From the Menu
>
>Tools
>
>Database Utilities
>
>Compact and Repair database
>
>The compact and repair will try to repair any corrupt indices.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mark
>
><rfdjr1@optonl ine.netwrote in message
>news:piuj24p8q b3ors3j2kt1mi9t 64uitmoq07@4ax. com...

>On 13 May 2008 03:22:36 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
><XXXusenet@dfe nton.com.invali d>
>wrote:
>>

>>>rfdjr1@opton line.net wrote in
>>>news:krah24l brfi0mo2dj65agm g0s334eps6pm@4a x.com:
>>>
>>>if I sort alphabetically by
>>>Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows
>>>393 records. Any idea why this would be?
>>>
>>>This is a classic symptom of a corrupted index. Make a backup copy
>>>of your data MDB and compact it. If the index was corrupted, that
>>>will be reported to you and you'll have to recreate it.

>>
>Thanks. By compact it, do you mean zip it with something like Winzip?
>Also, if
>this index is corrupted, how do I recreate it? I am a very casual user of
>Access
>and only have a few simple databases for some collections I have and I
>don't
>know the ins and outs of the program. Thanks again.
>>

>

Okay, thanks. I just tried this. Doesn't appear that anything happened. The
database was open, I used the compact/repair feature. The database closed back
to the box I get where I click on it initially to open it. No messages about not
being able to repair it or anything. When I open it up, the number difference is
still there. I tried it on both sorts.

[lyle fairfield]

Re: Discerpancy in number of records

On May 13, 5:55 pm, rfd...@optonlin e.net wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:28:45 +0100, "Mark" <mreed1...@btin ternet.comwrote :

By "Compact", he means a built in functionality of Access.

>

From the Menu

>

Tools

>

Database Utilities

>

Compact and Repair database

>

The compact and repair will try to repair any corrupt indices.

>

Regards,

>

Mark

>

<rfd...@optonli ne.netwrote in message
news:piuj24p8qb 3ors3j2kt1mi9t6 4uitmoq07@4ax.c om...

On 13 May 2008 03:22:36 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<XXXuse...@dfen ton.com.invalid >
wrote:

>

>>rfd...@optonl ine.net wrote in
>>news:krah24lb rfi0mo2dj65agmg 0s334eps6pm@4ax .com:

>

>>if I sort alphabetically by
>>Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows
>>393 records. Any idea why this would be?

>

>>This is a classic symptom of a corrupted index. Make a backup copy
>>of your data MDB and compact it. If the index was corrupted, that
>>will be reported to you and you'll have to recreate it.

>

Thanks. By compact it, do you mean zip it with something like Winzip?
Also, if
this index is corrupted, how do I recreate it? I am a very casual user of
Access
and only have a few simple databases for some collections I have and I
don't
know the ins and outs of the program. Thanks again.

>
Okay, thanks. I just tried this. Doesn't appear that anything happened. The
database was open, I used the compact/repair feature. The database closed back
to the box I get where I click on it initially to open it. No messages about not
being able to repair it or anything. When I open it up, the number difference is
still there. I tried it on both sorts.

I guess the db isn't huge? Why not zip it up and post it somewhere for
downloading so that we can see this miracle for ourselves?

[rfdjr1@optonline.net]

Re: Discerpancy in number of records

On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:04:42 -0700 (PDT), lyle fairfield
<lyle.fairfield @gmail.comwrote :

>On May 13, 5:55 pm, rfd...@optonlin e.net wrote:

>On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:28:45 +0100, "Mark" <mreed1...@btin ternet.comwrote :

>By "Compact", he means a built in functionality of Access.

>>

>From the Menu

>>

>Tools

>>

>Database Utilities

>>

>Compact and Repair database

>>

>The compact and repair will try to repair any corrupt indices.

>>

>Regards,

>>

>Mark

>>

><rfd...@optonl ine.netwrote in message
>news:piuj24p8q b3ors3j2kt1mi9t 64uitmoq07@4ax. com...
>On 13 May 2008 03:22:36 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
><XXXuse...@dfe nton.com.invali d>
>wrote:

>>

>>>rfd...@opton line.net wrote in
>>>news:krah24l brfi0mo2dj65agm g0s334eps6pm@4a x.com:

>>

>>>if I sort alphabetically by
>>>Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows
>>>393 records. Any idea why this would be?

>>

>>>This is a classic symptom of a corrupted index. Make a backup copy
>>>of your data MDB and compact it. If the index was corrupted, that
>>>will be reported to you and you'll have to recreate it.

>>

>Thanks. By compact it, do you mean zip it with something like Winzip?
>Also, if
>this index is corrupted, how do I recreate it? I am a very casual user of
>Access
>and only have a few simple databases for some collections I have and I
>don't
>know the ins and outs of the program. Thanks again.

>>
>Okay, thanks. I just tried this. Doesn't appear that anything happened. The
>database was open, I used the compact/repair feature. The database closed back
>to the box I get where I click on it initially to open it. No messages about not
>being able to repair it or anything. When I open it up, the number difference is
>still there. I tried it on both sorts.

>
>I guess the db isn't huge? Why not zip it up and post it somewhere for
>downloading so that we can see this miracle for ourselves?

The .mdb file is 100Kb. Where should I post it?

[lyle fairfield]

Re: Discerpancy in number of records

On May 13, 7:14 pm, rfd...@optonlin e.net wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:04:42 -0700 (PDT), lyle fairfield
>
>
>
<lyle.fairfi... @gmail.comwrote :

On May 13, 5:55 pm, rfd...@optonlin e.net wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:28:45 +0100, "Mark" <mreed1...@btin ternet.comwrote :
By "Compact", he means a built in functionality of Access.

>

From the Menu

>

Tools

>

Database Utilities

>

Compact and Repair database

>

The compact and repair will try to repair any corrupt indices.

>

Regards,

>

Mark

>

<rfd...@optonli ne.netwrote in message
news:piuj24p8qb 3ors3j2kt1mi9t6 4uitmoq07@4ax.c om...
On 13 May 2008 03:22:36 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<XXXuse...@dfen ton.com.invalid >
wrote:

>

>>rfd...@optonl ine.net wrote in
>>news:krah24lb rfi0mo2dj65agmg 0s334eps6pm@4ax .com:

>

>>if I sort alphabetically by
>>Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows
>>393 records. Any idea why this would be?

>

>>This is a classic symptom of a corrupted index. Make a backup copy
>>of your data MDB and compact it. If the index was corrupted, that
>>will be reported to you and you'll have to recreate it.

>

Thanks. By compact it, do you mean zip it with something like Winzip?
Also, if
this index is corrupted, how do I recreate it? I am a very casual user of
Access
and only have a few simple databases for some collections I have andI
don't
know the ins and outs of the program. Thanks again.

>

Okay, thanks. I just tried this. Doesn't appear that anything happened.The
database was open, I used the compact/repair feature. The database closed back
to the box I get where I click on it initially to open it. No messages about not
being able to repair it or anything. When I open it up, the number difference is
still there. I tried it on both sorts.

>

I guess the db isn't huge? Why not zip it up and post it somewhere for
downloading so that we can see this miracle for ourselves?

>
The .mdb file is 100Kb. Where should I post it?

E-mail it to me lyle dot fairfield at gmail dot com and I'll post it
and post the link here.

[rfdjr1@optonline.net]

Re: Discerpancy in number of records

On Tue, 13 May 2008 17:22:12 -0700 (PDT), lyle fairfield
<lyle.fairfield @gmail.comwrote :

>On May 13, 7:14 pm, rfd...@optonlin e.net wrote:

>On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:04:42 -0700 (PDT), lyle fairfield
>>
>>
>>
><lyle.fairfi.. .@gmail.comwrot e:

>On May 13, 5:55 pm, rfd...@optonlin e.net wrote:
>On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:28:45 +0100, "Mark" <mreed1...@btin ternet.comwrote :
>By "Compact", he means a built in functionality of Access.

>>

>From the Menu

>>

>Tools

>>

>Database Utilities

>>

>Compact and Repair database

>>

>The compact and repair will try to repair any corrupt indices.

>>

>Regards,

>>

>Mark

>>

><rfd...@optonl ine.netwrote in message
>news:piuj24p8q b3ors3j2kt1mi9t 64uitmoq07@4ax. com...
>On 13 May 2008 03:22:36 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
><XXXuse...@dfe nton.com.invali d>
>wrote:

>>

>>>rfd...@opton line.net wrote in
>>>news:krah24l brfi0mo2dj65agm g0s334eps6pm@4a x.com:

>>

>>>if I sort alphabetically by
>>>Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows
>>>393 records. Any idea why this would be?

>>

>>>This is a classic symptom of a corrupted index. Make a backup copy
>>>of your data MDB and compact it. If the index was corrupted, that
>>>will be reported to you and you'll have to recreate it.

>>

>Thanks. By compact it, do you mean zip it with something like Winzip?
>Also, if
>this index is corrupted, how do I recreate it? I am a very casual user of
>Access
>and only have a few simple databases for some collections I have and I
>don't
>know the ins and outs of the program. Thanks again.

>>

>Okay, thanks. I just tried this. Doesn't appear that anything happened. The
>database was open, I used the compact/repair feature. The database closed back
>to the box I get where I click on it initially to open it. No messages about not
>being able to repair it or anything. When I open it up, the number difference is
>still there. I tried it on both sorts.

>>

>I guess the db isn't huge? Why not zip it up and post it somewhere for
>downloading so that we can see this miracle for ourselves?

>>
>The .mdb file is 100Kb. Where should I post it?

>
>E-mail it to me lyle dot fairfield at gmail dot com and I'll post it
>and post the link here.

Thanks but no need. I realized I could upload it to my own website and it can be
downloaded from there. The link is:

http://www.folkusa.org/CD_DISKS.mdb

[lyle fairfield]

Re: Discerpancy in number of records

On May 13, 9:52 pm, rfd...@optonlin e.net wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 17:22:12 -0700 (PDT), lyle fairfield

>
<lyle.fairfi... @gmail.comwrote :

On May 13, 7:14 pm, rfd...@optonlin e.net wrote:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:04:42 -0700 (PDT), lyle fairfield

>

<lyle.fairfi... @gmail.comwrote :
On May 13, 5:55 pm, rfd...@optonlin e.net wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:28:45 +0100, "Mark" <mreed1...@btin ternet.comwrote :
By "Compact", he means a built in functionality of Access.

>

From the Menu

>

Tools

>

Database Utilities

>

Compact and Repair database

>

The compact and repair will try to repair any corrupt indices.

>

Regards,

>

Mark

>

<rfd...@optonli ne.netwrote in message
news:piuj24p8qb 3ors3j2kt1mi9t6 4uitmoq07@4ax.c om...
On 13 May 2008 03:22:36 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
<XXXuse...@dfen ton.com.invalid >
wrote:

>

>>rfd...@optonl ine.net wrote in
>>news:krah24lb rfi0mo2dj65agmg 0s334eps6pm@4ax .com:

>

>>if I sort alphabetically by
>>Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows
>>393 records. Any idea why this would be?

>

>>This is a classic symptom of a corrupted index. Make a backup copy
>>of your data MDB and compact it. If the index was corrupted, that
>>will be reported to you and you'll have to recreate it.

>

Thanks. By compact it, do you mean zip it with something like Winzip?
Also, if
this index is corrupted, how do I recreate it? I am a very casualuser of
Access
and only have a few simple databases for some collections I have and I
don't
know the ins and outs of the program. Thanks again.

>

Okay, thanks. I just tried this. Doesn't appear that anything happened. The
database was open, I used the compact/repair feature. The database closed back
to the box I get where I click on it initially to open it. No messages about not
being able to repair it or anything. When I open it up, the number difference is
still there. I tried it on both sorts.

>

I guess the db isn't huge? Why not zip it up and post it somewhere for
downloading so that we can see this miracle for ourselves?

>

The .mdb file is 100Kb. Where should I post it?

>

E-mail it to me lyle dot fairfield at gmail dot com and I'll post it
and post the link here.

>
Thanks but no need. I realized I could upload it to my own website and it can be
downloaded from there. The link is:
>
http://www.folkusa.org/CD_DISKS.mdb

I usually know what to say, but not this time.

[lyle fairfield]

Re: Discerpancy in number of records

On May 13, 11:53 pm, lyle fairfield <lyle.fairfi... @gmail.comwrote :

On May 13, 9:52 pm, rfd...@optonlin e.net wrote:
>
>
>

On Tue, 13 May 2008 17:22:12 -0700 (PDT), lyle fairfield

>

<lyle.fairfi... @gmail.comwrote :

>On May 13, 7:14 pm, rfd...@optonlin e.net wrote:
>On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:04:42 -0700 (PDT), lyle fairfield

>

><lyle.fairfi.. .@gmail.comwrot e:
>On May 13, 5:55 pm, rfd...@optonlin e.net wrote:
>On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:28:45 +0100, "Mark" <mreed1...@btin ternet.comwrote :
>By "Compact", he means a built in functionality of Access.

>

>From the Menu

>

>Tools

>

>Database Utilities

>

>Compact and Repair database

>

>The compact and repair will try to repair any corrupt indices.

>

>Regards,

>

>Mark

>

><rfd...@optonl ine.netwrote in message
>news:piuj24p8q b3ors3j2kt1mi9t 64uitmoq07@4ax. com...
>On 13 May 2008 03:22:36 GMT, "David W. Fenton"
><XXXuse...@dfe nton.com.invali d>
>wrote:

>

>>>rfd...@opton line.net wrote in
>>>news:krah24l brfi0mo2dj65agm g0s334eps6pm@4a x.com:

>

>>>if I sort alphabetically by
>>>Artist it have 387 records but if I sort by Album Title it shows
>>>393 records. Any idea why this would be?

>

>>>This is a classic symptom of a corrupted index. Make a backup copy
>>>of your data MDB and compact it. If the index was corrupted, that
>>>will be reported to you and you'll have to recreate it.

>

>Thanks. By compact it, do you mean zip it with something like Winzip?
>Also, if
>this index is corrupted, how do I recreate it? I am a very casual user of
>Access
>and only have a few simple databases for some collections I have and I
>don't
>know the ins and outs of the program. Thanks again.

>

>Okay, thanks. I just tried this. Doesn't appear that anything happened. The
>database was open, I used the compact/repair feature. The databaseclosed back
>to the box I get where I click on it initially to open it. No messages about not
>being able to repair it or anything. When I open it up, the numberdifferenc e is
>still there. I tried it on both sorts.

>

>I guess the db isn't huge? Why not zip it up and post it somewhere for
>downloading so that we can see this miracle for ourselves?

>

>The .mdb file is 100Kb. Where should I post it?

>

>E-mail it to me lyle dot fairfield at gmail dot com and I'll post it
>and post the link here.

>

Thanks but no need. I realized I could upload it to my own website and it can be
downloaded from there. The link is:

>

http://www.folkusa.org/CD_DISKS.mdb

>
I usually know what to say, but not this time.

I thought of something:
Perhaps, those who were about to expunge Access from their hard drives
and remove it from their application development repertoire because of
the anomaly reported in the original post should examine
http://www.folkusa.org/CD_DISKS.mdb before doing so.