Can't Decipher Unusual Autonumber Scheme

I have an Access 2000/XP with an unusual autonumber scheme; I can't figure
out how it generates its very unique value.

I have the database temporarily located at this website:

http://www.dbases.net/tmp/Tuscon2k.zip

The field is called ****Company_Id**** in the table "Companies." There are
LOTS of other tables linked to it but I deleted all of them because I was
able to decipher that they aren't responsible for helping to delete this
field's value, and it helps reduce the file's size.

I typically use an autonumber field simply for 1,2,3,4 etc--but this one
develops a VERY unusual value even including the { in the field, not just
numbers.

Tips?

LRH

The AutoNumber field's "Field Size" property has been set to
Replication ID.


--
Andy Briggs
Elmhurst Solutions Limited
http://www.elmhurstsolutions.com


Posted via http://dbforums.com

Larry, the autonumber field is set to Field Size Replication ID. What
this means is that for every record created, the machine creates a
GUID for each record.

See the link below for further info:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ieldCreate.asp

"Larry R Harrison Jr" <larrytuaz@cox.net> wrote in message news:<OSalb.103533$gv5.93092@fed1read05>...[color=blue]
> I have an Access 2000/XP with an unusual autonumber scheme; I can't figure
> out how it generates its very unique value.
>
> I have the database temporarily located at this website:
>
> http://www.dbases.net/tmp/Tuscon2k.zip
>
> The field is called ****Company_Id**** in the table "Companies." There are
> LOTS of other tables linked to it but I deleted all of them because I was
> able to decipher that they aren't responsible for helping to delete this
> field's value, and it helps reduce the file's size.
>
> I typically use an autonumber field simply for 1,2,3,4 etc--but this one
> develops a VERY unusual value even including the { in the field, not just
> numbers.
>
> Tips?
>
> LRH[/color]

"andybriggs" <member38555@dbforums.com> wrote in message
news:3506542.1066754839@dbforums.com...[color=blue]
>
> The AutoNumber field's "Field Size" property has been set to
> Replication ID.
>[/color]

I remember seeing that, but didn't think it would have an effect since it
was in the "Field Size" property. How in the world would something in the
"Field Size" property affect the type of autonumber generated? Oh well.

Now that that's settled, what reasons would one have for using such a type
of autonumber field rather than simply 1,2,3,4?

LR

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:19:24 -0700, "Larry R Harrison Jr"
<larrytuaz@cox.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"andybriggs" <member38555@dbforums.com> wrote in message
>news:3506542.1066754839@dbforums.com...[color=green]
>>
>> The AutoNumber field's "Field Size" property has been set to
>> Replication ID.
>>[/color]
>
>I remember seeing that, but didn't think it would have an effect since it
>was in the "Field Size" property. How in the world would something in the
>"Field Size" property affect the type of autonumber generated? Oh well.
>
>Now that that's settled, what reasons would one have for using such a type
>of autonumber field rather than simply 1,2,3,4?
>
>LR
>[/color]
Replication IDs are intended to be unique in the world, so that, when you
copy a record from one database into another, you know it won't duplicate
any records already there. If you try to do that with 2 databases that
both start counting from 1 - I think you see the problem.