I am developing a Make Table Query from 2 tables, one of which has an "Employee Name" field (lastname,firstname) and the other table has separate fields for LastName and FirstName. I've been able to accomplish almost what I need by:
WHERE ((([Table 1].[EMPLOYEE NAME]) Like [Table 2].[LAST NAME] & "*"));
Which works fine except when there are 2 employees having the same last name, then it generates duplicates. I suspect there must be a way to do this by incorporating the first name field in the sql statement but that's beyond my ability. I realize that names are not good things to base a query on, but the 2 existing tables have been preset and populated by others and I don't really have the capability to change them.
Have a Make table query that needs to create (add) several new fields where each field must be numeric design.
Have tried:
Score1: Not Null - does not seem to work (results in a Binary field) Score1: 0 - which does give me the numeric field designation but every field in table contains a 0.
Would like to show Blank field (makes data input easier at a later time) but still have the Numeric designation.
I have a Make Table query that includes a new field concatenated from a numeric field and a memo field, with some assorted text elements - Issue Description:"("&[number]&") "&[Description]
When I run the Make Table, the new field "Issue Description" is created as a text field, NOT as a memo field.
Is there any way to insure that this field is created as a memo field.
If I have a make table query where I want to add in some blank fields, say: Field1: “” , Field2: “”, etc…. is there a way I can make these fields a yes/no type instead of the default text?
I know I can manually go into the table in design view after I run the query, but I was hoping I could do it beforehand. :)
I need to put together a make table query, already got all the fields sorted the way i want the problem is that query is located in my databases Front End and i need the table to be made in the Back End (giggity), the filepath for the back end is actually stored in a "Master Control" table if this makes the process easier...
I have a make table query which creates the new table on the local front end.I have now split the DB, so need to know how I can get this query to make the table on the BE i.e. how do i link it.
I am trying to run a make table query that involves using a linked table in Ms from a SharePoint list. However, a few columns I wish to include in my Make table query are calculated columns from the SharePoint list.
The make table query will not run saying "Calculated columns are not allowed in SELECT INTO statements".
Can any think of a solution or a potential work around to this?
I need to create a table with these columns in it.
I have a make table query that gets its info from another table that is updated weekly. I would like that when we run the Query Type (Make Table), we would like to add a primary key to a field that exists already starting at 1 every time the query is run.
I have a running total query that seems to run but when I try to total the query results then Access will be "Not Responding". I tried to change it to a Make Table query because I need to use the running total result in another query. So I created a table but when I try to run the make table query it just says "Run Query" at the bottom. Here is the query:
SELECT [OTMissing].[Employee], [OTMissing].[AsOf], [OTMissing].[HRsEarn], (SELECT Sum(OT1.[HRsEarn]) FROM [OTMissing] As OT1 WHERE OT1.[Employee]=[OTMissing].[Employee] AND OT1.[AsOf] <=[OTMissing].[AsOf]) AS RunningTotal, [OTMissing].[RemainPP] INTO OTGenerated FROM [OTMissing] ORDER BY [OTMissing].[Employee], [OTMissing].AsOf;
My OTMissing query is 47061 rows. Does that have something to do with it? The only other thing it might be is that most of the records have 0 although I'm not sure why it would be a problem I thought I would at least mention it.
I am trying to make a crosstab query to filter my records from my table.
Here is the scenario.
I want to make a query that will return me my Rep ID, Rep Name, his Bonus and his GV-Q (another value) based on every month.
Now I make a crosstab query and here is the syntax.
Code: TRANSFORM First([TBL Qualification Data India].[Bonus Rank]) AS [FirstOfBonus Rank] SELECT [TBL Qualification Data India].[Rep #], [TBL Qualification Data India].[Rep Name] FROM [TBL Qualification Data India] GROUP BY [TBL Qualification Data India].[Rep #], [TBL Qualification Data India].[Rep Name] PIVOT [TBL Qualification Data India].Period;
This resulted in a column for Rep Number, one column for Rep Name and columns for all the period of Bonus I am going to have., so there are basically 9 columns for this till this month for each month and bonus value shows as values for all these month (period) columns.
Now in this same syntax, I want to have my Rep GV-Q value as well as his bonus to show in the same query, I read and came to know that it's not possible to directly have two values or two column headings in a crosstab query, I must have to make a new crosstab query and then use a normal select query to display records from these two crosstab queries, so I went ahead and made a new similar but with one value field changed crosstab query and here is the syntax for that.
Code:
TRANSFORM First([TBL Qualification Data India].[GV-Q]) AS [FirstOfGV-Q] SELECT [TBL Qualification Data India].[Rep #], [TBL Qualification Data India].[Rep Name] FROM [TBL Qualification Data India] GROUP BY [TBL Qualification Data India].[Rep #], [TBL Qualification Data India].[Rep Name] PIVOT [TBL Qualification Data India].Period;
Now after this how to make a select query to show the data from these two queries.
I can make a normal query based on these two crosstab queries and manually add all fields and then I would have my result but then after every month I have to manually enter these two extra month details from both crosstab queries to my final query and that's not what I want.
Is there any method to do this by gathering data from these two queries into one and achieve the result I want or if there is any other approach to tackle this.
To explain my database and my need for output, I am attaching few pics to make things easier if I made some mistakes in explaining my problem. It's included in attached zip since I am not able to post images or links.
I am fairly new to Acces 2010.I have two seperate tables hat I need to use to compare data. As you can see table A and table B have some of the same item numbers but they also have different item numbers that are not other table. Also some of the item numbers are duplicated in each table but that is okay because the cost of the item is different. Both tables contain item numbers for the products. I want all of Table A item numbers including the item numbers that are in table B. But I also want Table B item numbers except for the item numbers that are also in Table A. In the real raw data file some of the item number fields are blank but the other fields have values. How should I query these tables so that I achieve the correct results?
Table A Item Num Costof Item Supplier Sales Tax Purchase Month 1234 $1.00 Walmart $2.00 Dec 2013 2222 $4.00 Walmart $1.00 Dec 2013 2222 $2.00 Walmart $1.00 Dec 2013 1276 $3.00 Sams club $1.50 Dec 2013 7898 $5.00 Texaco $5.00 Dec 2013 4567 $3.50 Food Lion $1.00 Dec 2013
I found the attached example a while back (can't find the site again though ) and it calculates a moving average. I've hacked out the parts I need for my own work and I can create my moving average query without an issue.
However, I need to extract the MA data into a table so planned on using append. I kept getting type errors so I tried make table to see what type it was creating and it appears to be Short Text rather than a number.
I've added an extra button and Make Table query to the example.
As far as I can tell from the code, the moving average value when calculated is a Single. However, when I write it to the table, its a Short Text.
How do I make the created Table use Number Type for my calculated moving average?
I have a table that is basically a survey form. The same series of options was available for 35 questions, and the table used to have a text string written for each answer. Because of all the repetitive data, I created a second table that assigned a number value to each of the nine possible options in these 35 separate fields. What happened is that, instead of the same text strings repeated over and over (and taking up real estate), now each of the 35 columns had a single number in them.
Now comes the day of reckoning and TPTB want a query with the raw data and the original text strings back in instead of the numbers. I was thinking doing something along the lines of a DLookup, but I can't seem to make that work in a query correctly. Apart from calling the same table and linking it over and over to the different fields in the original data table (see photo for how insane that is).
I have a table with 3 fields. The fields are down1, down2 and down3. . I would like to use this table to create a new table (downtime). What I need too do is loop through each record in the table and place the three fields independently in my new table. For example, I would like to go to the first record in my original table, than place down1 as my first record in my new table, down2 as my second record and down3 as my third. Than I will go to the second record in my original table and place down1 as my fourth record, down2 as my fifth record, down3 and my sixth record and so on. I want to make a toggle button that will do this.
A list of codes that will be updated monthly, which will be the basis for querying the second table. Approx 100 rows of data.
2. Table Original
A data file obtained from IT where i'll need to sort it to find any codes that are including in Table1. This includes approx ~ 10,000 row of data.
** note, the "BIC" from "Table BIC" can appear in any of the 5 BIC columns in Table Original.
What i need to do is create a query that will:
1. Search the "BIC" from "Table BIC" in all 5 columns of "Table Original".
2. Where it has a hit, it will create new table - for example, the first row of table Original includes the BIC "ABC" in the "BIC 1" column. A query would create table "ABC" and place this whole record (all 8 fields) in new table "ABC". No modification needed.
3. Where two (or more) BIC's from "Table BIC" appear in one record in "Table Original" - the result will only need to be placed in one of the new tables (really doesn't matter which one). For example, Record #4 includes the BIC "ABC" in field "BIC1" and the BIC "DEF" in the field "BIC4". Therefore, a new table would be created (either ABC or DEF) to capture this information.
When I run this query, the fields in the new table contains 253 characters. How do I specify in the SQL command that the field Carg2 and Carg3 will contain 3 charachters ?
SELECT dbo_allesc.AccReport, Left([AccReport],2) AS Carg2, Left([AccReport],3) AS Carg3,......................... INTO regTabell
I am fairly new to Access and I would like to create a form to allow users to create their own query. I would like to allow users to select multiple fields (perhaps with checkboxes?) from all possible fields in a table to return either all data from that field or narrow their search by inputting certain criteria or choosing from a drop down into a text box. Is this possible in Access and any detailed specifics on how to achieve this?
I am just querying a single table, no relationship involved with another table. As you can see form the attached jpeg, the ZIP field in some cases is empty. I would run a search using Is NULL but the field is NOT numerical. It's a long story but I had to make this field a TEXT field. Basically, what statement do I have to insert in the criteria field to just pull up the EMPTY ZIP fields?
I know that this could open a can of worms but is the above statement true. I have always avoided using delet and append due to database bloat. I know its more difficult to set the field types in a make table query but it means that the database doesn’t need to be compacted nearly as much as delet and append.
If my understanding is incorrect please explain top me why delete and append are better.
Hello All, I'm using MS Access 2003 for a web DB... Am wondering.. is it bad to use Make-Table queries for the web..? Or should I just do all the SQL joining and linking stuff just with more SQL code?
Just curious about the impact Make-Table queries have on the Web.. Slower? Not a good idea?
I have a linked table with 3 significant columns in it: Marque Model Volumes (there's actually about 12, but I only need these)
and I need to create a new table summarising the contents and creating new columns at the same time Marque Model Model_name (concatenate marque and model, easy to do) Vols sorted: Descending Rank (this is the problem)
I need to 'Rank' the table so the model with the highest volumes is ranked #1 the second highest is #2 and so on. Is there a command within access to allow this to happen? in SQL-Plus from Oracle I can use the Rownum command to create the entry, but this does not have an equivilent in access. At present, I'm creating the table without the rank field, then adding it in design view, setting it for autonumber, saving, and resetting it to number. This is long-winded and frankly, messy and wrong. I shuld be able to do this in one go, but I can't. I've been using access for about 6 years solid and have not been able to resolve this 3-month-old problem and it's driving me mad.
I have 4 queries needed to power one report. I've tried combining the queries into one so I can run the report off that. However, there is too much data and I get all sorts of errors. My only solution was to toss that data into a table thereby eliminating all the calculations and expressions and cleaning up the data. Is there a more elegant solution to this issue?
I have 4 queries needed to power one report. I've tried combining the queries into one so I can run the report off that. However, there is too much data and I get all sorts of errors. My only solution was to toss that data into a table thereby eliminating all the calculations and expressions and cleaning up the data. Is there a more elegant solution to this issue?
