Autopopulate a table with blank fields every time another table adds a field

[sjjs3189]

I'm new to access and am wondering if this is possible. Basically, I have a main table where the majority of info goes. But then there needs to be a second table with additional information. I want to make it so every time a new record is added to Table A, a blank record also gets added to Table B, so that when editing in a form, the user can have the option to click a button and see that additional info.

That, or is it possible to match only specific records in Table A that get populated with the additional information in Table B without all the blank records?

[NeoPa]

Rushed reply - more later.

The second option is possible and makes much better sense.

[NeoPa]

Hi sjjs3189.

Welcome to Bytes.com.

As I started to say earlier, but was in a rush, the first approach is unnecessarily clumsy. That said, there are very few occasions where the second is required either, frankly.

Let's start with a link to one of my favourite articles as it can be such an eye-opener for those coming to databases fresh (Database Normalisation and Table Structures).

Back to your specific issue, do you have over 255 Fields in the data altogether? If so then it's very unlikely you have a very reliable design. Not impossible, but extremely rare for that to make sense. If not then there is no reason I can see why you need to complicate matters by having an extra, separate, table.

With a single table you can design a Form that has the Fields of most interest included as a matter of course, and perhaps a Page (or Tab) Control that contains the rest. Often these will be Controls of Fields that are all empty. That's fine. They'll not take up space that way.

If you're trying to organise your data around Access instead of using what it already provides for you then you should understand that isn't a very good idea. Something generally to be avoided.

If I'm honest, it sounds like you've come to this without a good understanding of what Access already handles for you and thus have over-complicated matters. Not a problem. Easily fixed :-)

[valforchin]

answer

I agree with you, you are right. I did it too.

[valforchin]

thank you, very important information for me

[sjjs3189]

No. I need two tables unfortunately. I'm trying to learn access for my job and one example I was given is that sometimes there's extra information that they don't want included in the main table because the main table is only for admins. The secondary table would provide additional information on a record for those who would actually work with the project (record). So I need to make sure every record has a matching record that can be edited and seen at any point. But the problem is the main table just uses the automatic numbering as its ID field. How do I do this?

[NeoPa]

Well, that scenario could also be handled by a single table quite well of course, but if we're talking about learning about different approaches and techniques then that won't be what you're looking for.

I'm going to be a little more circumspect now I know that you're on the path in order to develop your skills. My giving you pre-packaged answers won't be doing you any favours. That said, it sounds to me like you're someone who's not afraid of a challenge so I think we're on the same page here.

So, you're question is about linking tables together. As I suggested in my first reply (Post #2) it is perfectly possible to link tables together and include all records from table A, and only those from Table B where there is a match.

sjjs3189:
But the problem is the main table just uses the automatic numbering as its ID field. How do I do this?

Can you explain why this appears as a problem to you? I feel we're missing part of the picture. Normally speaking this is not seen as a problem.