By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
425,805 Members | 1,100 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 425,805 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Record Count

P: n/a
I have a form where I have turned off the default navigation buttons. I
then created my own. This works fine. The only questions that I have is on
the default navigation buttons it shows total records. How can I show this?
I have a text box that shows the current record using:

Text1 = Me.Current

I want to show the total number of records.

How do I do this?

Mike Charney
m charney at dunlap hospital dot org

Feb 15 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
7 Replies


P: n/a
Hi,

Try this :

Supposing the textbox containing the total number of records is named
txtTotalRecords,
insert this line into the "Current" Event Procedure of your form :

Me.txtTotalRecords.Value = Me.Recordset.RecordCount
that should do the trick ...

Hope it was useful

--
Cyrille

Feb 15 '06 #2

P: n/a
Hi,

Try this :

Supposing the textbox containing the total number of records is named
txtTotalRecords,
insert this line into the "Current" Event Procedure of your form :

Me.txtTotalRecords.Value = Me.Recordset.RecordCount
that should do the trick ...

Hope it was useful

--
Cyrille

Feb 15 '06 #3

P: n/a
Sorry for the double post, I'm posting through Google Groups, and there
must have been a problem with my first posting

Feb 15 '06 #4

P: n/a
Gox
Mike wrote:
I have a form where I have turned off the default navigation buttons. I
then created my own. This works fine. The only questions that I have is on
the default navigation buttons it shows total records. How can I show this?
I have a text box that shows the current record using:

Text1 = Me.Current

I want to show the total number of records.

How do I do this?

Mike Charney
m charney at dunlap hospital dot org


Mike,

in Control Source of Text1:

=IIf([CurrentRecord]>(Count(*));'New Record';('Record ' &
[CurrentRecord] & ' of ' & Count(*)))
--
Gox
Feb 16 '06 #5

P: n/a
Ted
Use the Bookmark function to mark your current record, perform the
MoveLast to go to the last record in the recordset, grap the record
count, then return to you bookmarked record.
My understanding is that sometimes the recordcount is not accurate
unless you force the recordset to the last record.
I can't remember exactly which user group I read that in of if I got it
from one of the Access User Group meetings I attend at Microsoft in
Redmond, but the most accurate record count is obtained by forcing the
MoveLast to find the last record.

Feb 16 '06 #6

P: n/a
"Cyrille" <ch********@gmail.com> wrote
Sorry for the double post, I'm posting through
Google Groups, and there must have been a
problem with my first posting


If you are going to apologize, do so for not saying that RecordCount gives
you a total number of Records in the Recordset ONLY if you have done a
..MoveLast before displaying the RecordCount. It is a count of number of
Records that have been displayed/ traversed, not a "total".

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP

Feb 17 '06 #7

P: n/a
My mistake, I posted too quickly. It's even indicated in the Help of
Access, so I have no excuses.

The strange thing is, it _seems_ to work. (Of course this can't
constitute a valid justification for using this method, but
nevertheless ...)
I had tested it in a few forms, without the .MoveLast, and the
returned value was always coherent with the number of records (as
indicated in the navigation bar at the bottom). I had tested some
Recordset-related actions, like creating a new record, or deleting one,
and still the value returned by RecordCount (without a prior .MoveLast)
is correct.
So why does RecordCount does report correct values even when all the
records have not been traversed ?
And in which specific circumstances does this method returns false
values ?

The .Movelast - .Recordcount method seems to have a significant
impact on the performance, so is there a quicker and smarter way to
implement a record count ?

--
Cyrille

Feb 17 '06 #8

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.