Help with grouping Fields in reports.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Jacob Herzog
    New Member
    • Dec 2010
    • 8

    #1

    Help with grouping Fields in reports.

    Im trying to create a report that list my contents in order of

    M S G R D S

    In 2 and 3 there is multiable values from the column which is causing my report to look like this

    1 1 1 1 1 1
    1 1 2 1 1 1
    1 1 3 1 1 1
    1 2 1 1 1 1
    1 2 2 1 1 1
    1 2 3 1 1 1
    1 3 1 1 1 1
    1 3 2 1 1 1
    1 3 3 1 1 1

    I want my report to look like this But cant seem to figure out how to take multiple information from a column retaining to the first field and group it. I think Im wording that right.

    1 1,2,3 1,2,3 1 1 1
    2 1,2,3, 1,2,3, 1 1 1

    And so on...
  • NeoPa
    Recognized Expert Moderator MVP
    • Oct 2006
    • 32669

    #2
    Unless there is a good reason not to, this can most easily be achieved by doing a GROUP BY query and building the report off that.

    Otherwise, a bit more involved but still possible, there is an option in a report definition called Sorting and Grouping (View / Sorting and Grouping). From here you can set which fields from the record source are grouped. For each group set up there is both a Group Header and a Group Footer. If you design your report to show data, not in the Detail section which is most usual, but in the matching Group Footer section, then you will be able to show what you need even if the underlying record source is not grouped.

    Comment

    • NeoPa
      Recognized Expert Moderator MVP
      • Oct 2006
      • 32669

      #3
      Oh no. I just reread your question and realised you were asking for something quite a lot more complicated than the usual aggregating or grouping. For help with that part of the issue (You will need to do this within a query after all) see Listing Items Within GROUP BY Set. You should understand that this is treating relational data in a non-relational way, so the proposed solution is a kludge and Access (an RDBMS - Relational DataBase Management System) was never designed to work that way. Within its limits though, it may provide your solution.

      My best advice is not to go that way at all. Find a design that works within the Relational Concept if you can. Otherwise the solution can be found within the linked thread.

      Comment

      Working...