By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
434,762 Members | 1,836 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 434,762 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Can't Decipher Unusual Autonumber Scheme

P: n/a
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
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
4 Replies


P: n/a

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
Nov 12 '05 #2

P: n/a
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" <la*******@cox.net> wrote in message news:<OSalb.103533$gv5.93092@fed1read05>...
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

Nov 12 '05 #3

P: n/a
"andybriggs" <me*********@dbforums.com> wrote in message
news:35****************@dbforums.com...

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


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
Nov 12 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:19:24 -0700, "Larry R Harrison Jr"
<la*******@cox.net> wrote:
"andybriggs" <me*********@dbforums.com> wrote in message
news:35****************@dbforums.com...

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


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

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.
Nov 12 '05 #5

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.