| Subject: Re: relationships, enforcing referencial integrity |   View Full Headers List Thread in New Window List Thread in Group Window List Thread in Article Window | |
| From: <larryh@appliedimage.com> | ||
| Date: 15 Feb 2001 22:02:15 GMT | ||
| Message-ID: <96hjl7$7cm$1@news.netmar.com> | ||
| Newsgroups: microsoft.public.access.setupconfig | ||
Never mind, I apologize for the unnecessary post, I found the fix for this. But in case anyone else has issues with this, maybe this post will help you. What was causing the referencial integrity to not be able to be enforced was two things (1) there were data in the "Subparts" field which didn't have a matching record in "parts" to which it was associated. That main part had been deleted from the main PART table before, leaving stranded data. Removing it fixed the issue (2) Also, my speculation was correct. If your database is "split" in two parts (front/back end) as mine was, then you would have the database relationships set up in the "back" part (where the tables reside), NOT in the "front" part where the tables are linked and the forms/reports/macros etc. reside. Hope this helps anyone else out there. Larry In article <96hh8s$v75$1@news.netmar.com>, <larryh@appliedimage.com> writes: >I am having difficulties enforcing referencial integrity with my tables. > >The MAIN table I have is a PROJECTS table. This table holds main products the >company makes. Each product consists of subparts, and data for each of those >is stored in a separate table called SUBPARTS. They are linked by a field in >the SUBPARTS table called PROJECTS_ID, which is the same number as the AUTOID >field in the "parent" table, the PROJECTS table. > >In the relationships, it is defined as "one to many," with the PROJECTS being >the "one" and the SUBPARTS being the "many." No matter, in the relationships >window, the options of "enforce referencial integrity" are dimmed, it won't >allow it. What would be causing this? > >Also, my database is split into a "front" end with the forms, queries, >reports, etc and a "back end" where only the tables are. (In the "front" end, >the tables show up as linked tables.) Should the relationships be specified >in the "front" end (as they are now) or the "back" end? > >Larry