Oh, left out the other part. After you relate your Personnel table MOS_ID
field to MOS table MOS_ID field the easiest way for a beginner would be to
build a query with those two tables and base your form on the query. Then
you would just drag the MOS title field to the form and your done.
OK I'm about ready to give up on this idea, it just seems to be 10x more
trouble than it's worth, but I guess I'll give this one last try.
I created 2 brand new tables after reading your article.
Table 1
Table 2
MOS MOS TITLE SSN MOS
MOS TITLE
11B Infantry 123-45-6789 11B
I had to make the primary key in table 2 MOS, and I made the relationship
between MOS from table 1 and MOS from table 2. I came across 2 things that
are not what I wanted. Number 1, I can't figure out how to get it to fill
that MOS TITLE column in my table. It just leaves me a dropdown box with MOS
TITLE from Table 1 in it with the information. The other problem, is that
in order to get the information to show in Table 2, I had to make that MOS
the primary key, which in turn means I can't have duplicates. So that is not
going to do anything for me when 1000 people need to be input in the table
and none of them can have the same MOS.
I'm obviously missing something here, or I'm wasting time trying to do
something that Access just isn't capable of. Keep in mind, I've been using
computers for a good amount of time, and Access for about 2 weeks. So I can
try to figure out what is being talked about in these articles, but honestly
it's like trying to read a book in another language in my first year of study
of that language. I'm re-reading each section multiple times and then still
having to go to trial and error to see if my hypothesis on the section was
correct.
I appreciate the replies that have tried to help me accomplish my goal at
this point. I'm trying to get this to work, but I'm getting not much but
frustrated.
> Oh, left out the other part. After you relate your Personnel table MOS_ID
> field to MOS table MOS_ID field the easiest way for a beginner would be to
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
> >> linked, and I really couldn't figure out how to relate that to what I was
> >> trying to accomplish. Thanks for the help thus far though.
Pete D. - 16 May 2008 23:10 GMT
Okay, I know your just starting at this and yes (although I'll probally get
flamed) you can do it the way you started but if you get this one right you
will be well on your way to understanding how to use a relational database.
First your MOS table will have
MOS and MOS_Title
Nothing else is currently needed unless you want to add descriptions and
such later. MOS must be unique key no duplicates.
Your People table will include 1 to millions of personnel. It may include
SSAN, Name, Grade or whatever but it must also include MOS. MOS in the
people table will not be index as a unique key but it should be indexed as a
non-unique key.
Now, open the relationships window and add both tables to the window. Drag
the MOS field from the personnel table to the MOS table MOS Field and you
will get a one to many relationship. In other words your personnel file can
have many MOS that are duplicates but the MOS file can only have one of
each.
Now you create a select query using both files. In the query select all
fields from Personnel and drag them to the query grid. From the MOS file
only drag the MOS_Title field to the query.
Now create your form using this query you just created. Every time you add
a MOS the MOS Title will fill in automatically. Post back and we can help
you get around any problems.
Oh yeah, don't forget to add some MOS's and Titles to the MOS table for
testing, you can just stick them right in the table grid for now but
eventually create a form for just the MOS table to load additonal MOS's. I
also found there are MOS listings around the web that you could probally
import to save you a boat load of typing. Your personnel folks probally
alreay have a spreadsheet or table of all of MOS they could give you.
> OK I'm about ready to give up on this idea, it just seems to be 10x more
> trouble than it's worth, but I guess I'll give this one last try.
[quoted text clipped - 131 lines]
>> >> was
>> >> trying to accomplish. Thanks for the help thus far though.