Custom Sequential Numbering
in [Getting Started]
|
From: Larry Linson on 21 Jan 2010 18:57 "Arvin Meyer [MVP]" <arvinm(a)mvps.invalid> wrote >> I also seem to remember reading somewhere, >> although I can't provide any evidence, that >> even if you don't force Access to discard an >> AutoNumber, it is still possible to have a >> broken sequence in an incremental AutoNumber. > > I don't think so except for the now fixed bug that allowed autonumbers to > attempt reuse. Arvin, in either Access 2.0 or 97, I experienced some instances of Access Autonumbers skipping hundreds or thousands of numbers. I was the only one working on the databases at the time, and I know that I had not done any of the "normal causes" hundreds or thousands of times, nor had there been any delete queries executed. Fortunately, I knew by that time not to rely on Autonumbers being monotonically increasing, so it was not a problem to me. And, because it was not a problem for me, I didn't bother to try to analyze the cause other than what I said in the preceding paragraph. Larry Linson Microsoft Office Access MVP
From: Arvin Meyer [MVP] on 21 Jan 2010 19:03
"John W. Vinson" <jvinson(a)STOP_SPAM.WysardOfInfo.com> wrote in message news:cc2hl5h7qsvhmfl7v1imun3g7qilkbf5is(a)4ax.com... >>I think we are saying the same thing in different ways. Autonumbers cannot >>be reused, whether the record is started or deleted. Once used, it's gone. > > In that we're in agreement, and my take is that this fact makes > autonumbers > completely unsuitable if sequential gapless numbers are required. The original request did not mention gapless as a requirement. In any case, and system that allows deletions cannot, by definition, be guaranteed gapless. -- Arvin Meyer, MCP, MVP http://www.datastrat.com http://www.mvps.org/access http://www.accessmvp.com |