I don't know why you are so patronizing
I looked at some of the previous questions you've posted and found that you
would probably have an easier time assimilating the incongruity if I gave you
a little extra explanation, instead of just a short answer. My posts weren't
intended to be patronizing, so I'm sorry you categorized them this way.
I work for a company that does 75 billion in international business.
Apparently no one has had the heart to tell you that your company has had a
serious reversal of fortune. Your company reported annual revenues, both
foreign and domestic, of only $7.64 billion through June 30th to the SEC. My
condolences if your job is affected by such a devastating downtrend in
corporate revenues. Actually, I can't think of any company that has ever
lost almost $70 billion in annual business and survived, so I hope you have
your resume up to date and you have a 401K, not a future pension you're
depending on.
If you can't relate to what I was doing,
then I'm not sure you're living in a real world. . . . I asked what explanation
you might have. All you came back with was more condescending and
unuseful commentary extolling your "experience".
I can probably relate to what you're doing, since I've worked for three very
large organizations, each with 200,000 - 300,000+ personnel. So I've seen
tens of thousands of home-grown Access databases over the years in the IS/IT
departments, a good number of them replicated, and some of them I even built
myself. I haven't seen any AutoNumbers in replicated databases that were set
to "Increment" instead of "Random," nor do I find any other reports of this
by Googling for this problem. The only plausible explanation I have for your
case is that your Design Master is corrupt, which might happen if you don't
have the right service packs installed on both your work computer and the one
you use at home, or if you're not transporting the replicated database from
work to home and back to work again on a laptop so that the computer name and
file path are always the same at work and at home.
For the majority of replicas I've seen throughout the many departments and
organizations I've been in or been associated with that were using
replication, multiple replicas are the rule, not the exception. Each
organization has multiple satellite offices and multiple people that spend
time on the road with their laptops, and they all need to sync their data
with the home office. When it comes to data in these organizations, the
databases are shared and highly integrated resources, so there are very few
*lone wolves* (single users who are the only ones who need to sync their data)
. Almost none of these organizations would use Access replication if they
could only create and sync one replica, because they'd find it inadequate for
their needs.
You asked for help. You can listen to the advice of someone who has probably
built more replicated databases successfully than you have, and has seen more
replicated databases than you have, and has done some homework to cater
answers specifically for you. On the other hand, you can take the time to
earn that experience for yourself. It's up to you, hon.
You presumed that my records are not randomly incremented
"like everybody elses", which means you were not paying any attention. That
is precisely the problem and the result that I don't want.
What presumption? *You* told us your records are not randomly incremented,
so we took your word for it. Hon, I know you don't *want* random AutoNumbers,
but that's what everyone is *supposed* to get after replication, whether this
frosts your cake or not. You seem to be taking your anger out on me because
the Seed property can't be set on your AutoNumber field in your replicated
database (which means at least that part is working as designed, even if you
don't see "Random" in the "New Values" property in the table's Design View).
A word to the wise: if you find that Access is acting crazy, but only for
one application, or you have an application that does something that no one
else's application does, or you have an application that doesn't act in some
way like everyone else's, it's a prime indicator that you may have a corrupt
file on your hands. Or you've made a colossal boo boo in your code.
As it turns out, I have already gone way
past this and found another solution;
Good for you! I'm glad you've succeeded in doing what you needed to get done.
Did you go with the linked table in an unreplicated database file, which is
the simplest way to keep a non-randomly incremented AutoNumber after
replication, as long as you don't need to enforce referential integrity for
that table?
you were not only not helpful, but
insultingly self-aggrandizing.
You say that I'm extolling my experience and being insultingly self-
aggrandizing. Let's just overlook the rude parts and the part about bragging
of working for a company that does $75 billion in international business.
You're free to ask for and take the advice of people who are merely guessing
at what your problem is if that's easier to swallow than someone telling you
"what my experience has been when I was in your shoes." I, for one, won't be
wasting my time in the future by offering you advice, providing examples to
explain concepts, or supplying links to free tools to help you get your job
done faster and easier.
