My company has a really old Access 2003 .ADP front-end connected to an on-premise SQL Server. I was trying to update the front-end to MS Access 2016, which is what we're transitioning to, but when linking the tables I get all the fields in this specific table as #Deleted. I've looked around and tried to change some of the settings, but I'm really not that into SQL Server to know what I'm doing, hence asking for help.
When converting the table to local, all the info is correctly displayed, so it begs the question. Also, skipping to the last record will reveal the info on that record, or sorting/filtering reveals some of the records, but most of the table stays "#Deleted"...
Since I know you're going to ask: Yes, I need to edit the records.. Although the snapshot method would work for people trying to view the info, some of us need to edit it.
I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this,
Thanks in advance, Rafael.
There are 3 common reasons for this:
You have bit fields in SQL server, but they are null. They should be assigned a default of 0.
The table in question does NOT have a PK (primary key).
Last but not least you need (want) to add a timestamp column. Keep in mind that this is really what we call a “row version” column (so it not a date/time column, but a timestamp column). Adding this column will help access determine if a record been changed, and this is especially the case for any table/form in Access that allows editing of “real” number data types (single, double). If access does not find a timestamp column, then it reverts to a column by column comparison to determine table changes, and due to how computers handle “real” numbers (with rounding), then such comparisons often fail.
So, check for the above 3 issues. You likely should re-run the linked table manager have making any changes.
I haven't had this problem until I first tried to manually add data to a database since my upgrade to WebMatrix 3, so I don't know if this is a bug or some kind of fault prevention.
I have defined a very simple table with the primary key as int and set it to not allow nulls, and be of the type IsIdentity so that the int value will automatically increment, as needed.
A pic of that is shown here:
Okay, seems simple enough, but when I try to manually add data to the table, it, as it should, does NOT allow me to modify the primary key value in any way (because it is automatic).
All I do is put in a couple of string values to the type and location columns and it tells me that it couldn't commit changes to the database because of the invalid value in the primary key field (it acts as though it is gonna try to throw NULL in as the value, but this should be overridden when it automatically adds the row. The user-interface does not allow me to control or edit this value in anyway).
A pic of this is shown here:
What is this? Some kind of bug? Is it a new rule that WebMatrix does not allow a developer to add values to the database manually? Do I have to write a query every time I want to add something to the database? Am I in the Twilight Zone? (Okay, sorry about the last one...)
Also, I've noticed that if I don't have IsIdentity set, I can edit the field, put a PERFECTLY VALID integer therein, and it still errors the same way, so I use ESC to backup my changes, then hit refresh, only to find that it did, indeed, add the row anyway :/ . So, this interface seems kind of buggy to begin with. In my scenario above (using IsIdentity), it DOES NOT add the row anyway, unfortunately.
--------------------UPDATE--------------------------
I just recently downloaded a WebMatrix update, and it appears that they have fixed this! Yay! (till now I was just querying generic INSERT INTO statements and editing them manually from there).
I think the SQL CE tooling with WM3 is broken, suggest you look at other tools for editing data - I can recommend the standalone SQL Server Compact Toolbox (disclosure: I am the author)
The project I'm working on tracks data on a year by year basis. The user will log into the system and specify the year it wants to access the data of. For example, the user could specify the year 2004, and the .jsp pages will display 2004 data.
My problem is that from 2013 onward, the data for one .jsp page will be different, and the current database table schema needs to be modified, but backwards compatibility for the 2012 and before years needs to be maintained.
Currently (2012 and before), the relevant database table displays two columns, "continuing students" & "new starts" that is displayed by a single .jsp. For 2013 and onward, 4 columns need to be displayed. The original two columns are being split into two subcategories each, undergrad and graduate. So I can't simply add those new columns to the existing table because that would violate third normal form.
What do you think the best way to manage this situation? How do I display the new data while still maintaining backwards compatibility to display the data for older years?
Some options:
Introduce the fields and allow for nulls for older data. I think you rejected this idea.
Create new table structures to store the new data going forward. It's an least an option if you don't want (1). You could easily create a view that queries from both tables and presents a unified set of data. You could also handle this in the UI and call two separate stored procedures depending on the year queried.
Create a new table with the new attributes and then optionally join back to your original table. This keeps the old table the same and the new table is just an extension of the old data. You would write a stored procedure potentially to take in the year and then return the appropriate data.
One of the things to really consider is that the old data is now inactive. If you aren't writing to it anymore, it's just historical data that can be "archived" mentally. In that case I think it's ok to freeze the schema and the data and let it live by itself.
Also consider if your customers are likely to change the schema yet again. If so, then maybe (1) is the best.
I have a huge database (800MB) which consists of a field called 'Date Last Modified' at the moment this field is entered as a text data type but need to change it to a Date/Time field to carry out some queries.
I have another exact same database but with only 35MB of data inside it and when I change the data type it works fine, but when I try to change data type on big database it gives me an error:
Micorosoft Office Access can't change the data type.
There isn't enough disk space or memory
After doing some research some sites mentioned of changing the registry file (MaxLocksPerFile) tried that as well, but no luck :-(
Can anyone help please?
As John W. Vinson says here, the problem you're running into is that Access wants to hold a copy of the table while it makes the changes, and that causes it to exceed the maximum allowable size of an Access file. Compacting and repairing might help get the file under the size limit, but it didn't work for me.
If, like me, you have a lot of complex relationships and reports on the old table that you don't want to have to redo, try this variation on #user292452's solution instead:
Copy the table (i.e. 'YourTable') then paste Structure Only back
into your database with a different name (i.e. 'YourTable_new').
Copy YourTable again, and paste-append the data to YourTable_new.
(To paste-append, first paste, and select Append Data to Existing
Table.)
You may want to make a copy of your Access database at this point,
just in case something goes wrong with the next part.
Delete all data in YourTable using a delete query---select all
fields, using the asterisk, and then run with default settings.
Now you can change the fields in YourTable as needed and save
again.
Paste-append the data from YourTable_new to YourTable, and check
that there were no errors from type conversion, length, etc.
Delete YourTable_new.
One relatively tedious (but straightforward) solution would be to break the big database up into smaller databases, do the conversion on the smaller databases, and then recombine them.
This has an added benefit that if, by some chance, the text is an invalid date in one chunk, it will be easier to find (because of the smaller chunk sizes).
Assuming you have some kind of integer key on the table that ranges from 1 to (say) 10000000, you can just do queries like
SELECT *
INTO newTable1
FROM yourtable
WHERE yourkey >= 0 AND yourkey < 1000000
SELECT *
INTO newTable2
FROM yourtable
WHERE yourkey >= 1000000 AND yourkey < 2000000
etc.
Make sure to enter and run these queries seperately, since it seems that Access will give you a syntax error if you try to run more than one at a time.
If your keys are something else, you can do the same kind of thing, but you'll have to be a bit more tricky about your WHERE clauses.
Of course, a final thing to consider, if you can swing it, is to migrate to a different database that has a little more power. I'm guessing you have reasons that this isn't easy, but with the amount of data you're talking about, you'll probably be running into other problems as well as you continue to use Access.
EDIT
Since you are still having some troubles, here is some more detail in the hopes that you'll see something that I didn't describe well enough before:
Here, you can see that I've created a table "OutputIDrive" similar to what you're describing. I have an ID tag, though I only have three entries.
Here, I've created a query, gone into SQL mode, and entered the appropriate SQL statement. In my case, because my query only grabs value >= 0 and < 2, we'll just get one row...the one with ID = 1.
When I click the run button, I get a popup that tells/warns me what's going to happen...it's going to put a row into a new table. That's good...that's what we're looking for. I click "OK".
Now our new table has been created, and when I click on it, we can see that our one line of data with ID = 1 has been copied over to this new table.
Now you should be able to just modify the table name and the number values in your SQL query, and run it again.
Hopefully this will help you with whatever tripped you up.
EDIT 2:
Aha! This is the trick. You have to enter and run the SQL statements one at a time in Access. If you try to put multiple statements in and run them, you'll get that error. So run the first one, then erase it and run the second one, etc. and you should be fine. I think that will do it! I've edited the above to make it clearer.
Adapted from Karl Donaubauer's answer on an MSDN post:
Switch to immediate window (Ctl + G)
Execute the following statement:
DBEngine.SetOption dbMaxLocksPerFile, 200000
Microsoft has a KnowledgeBase article that addresses this problem directly and describes the cause:
The page locks required for the transaction exceed the MaxLocksPerFile value, which defaults to 9500 locks. The MaxLocksPerFile setting is stored in the Windows registry.
The KnowledgeBase article says it applies to Access 2002 and 2003, but it worked for me when changing a field in an .mdb from Access 2013.
It's entirely possible that in a database of that size, you've got text data that won't convert to a valid Date/Time.
I would suggest (and you may hate me for this) that you export all those prospective date values from "Big" and go through them (perhaps in Excel) to see which ones are not formatted the way you'd expect.
Assuming that the error message is accurate, you're running up against a disk or memory limitation. Assuming that you have more than a couple of gigabytes free on your disk drive, my best guess is that rebuilding the table would put the database (including work space) over the 2 gigabyte per file limit in Access.
If that's the case you'll need to:
Unload the data into some convenient format and load it back in to an empty database with an already existing table definition.
Move a subset of the data into a smaller table, change the data type in the smaller table, compact and repair the database, and repeat until all the data is converted.
If the error message is NOT correct (which is possible), the most likely cause is a bad or out-of-range date in your text-date column.
Copy the table (i.e. 'YourTable') then paste just its structure back into your database with a different name (i.e. 'YourTable_new').
Change the fields in the new table to what you want and save it.
Create an append query and copy all the data from your old table into the new one.
Hopefully Access will automatically convert the old text field directly to the correct value for the new Date/Time field. If not, you might have to clear out the old table and re-append all the data and use a string to date function to convert that one field when you do the append.
Also, if there is an autonumber field in the old table this might not work because there is no way to ensure that the old autonumber values will line up with the new autonumber values that get assigned.
You've been offered a bunch of different ways to get around the disk space error message.
Have you tried adding a new field to your existing table using Date data type and then updating the field with the value the existing string date field? If that works, you can then delete the old field and rename the new one to the old name. That would probably take up less temp space than doing a direct conversion from string to date on a single field.
If it still doesn't work, you may be able to do it with a sceond table with two columns, the first long integer (make it the primary key), the second, date. Then append the PK and string date field to this empty table. Then add a new date field to the existing table, and using a join, update the new field with the values from the two-column table.
This may run into the same problem. It depends on number of things internal to the Jet/ACE database engine over which we have no real control.
I have a database that I just converted the back end to SQL Server using SSMA. I left the front end in MS Access. I only converted the tables and not the queries. It already had some data in it and that moved over just fine.
All was going well until just recently. On opening the database and loading the main form Event Interest it started having problems with the first record of the subform, called Names. The first field in the first record has data sometimes and not others. This is a text field. When data is in the field it puts in random numbers. I believe they may be related to SQL somehow. When there is no data/missing you can select the field and hit the backspace button and the data will appear minus the one character you just errased. I have no idea what is going on.
Any help you can supply I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance.
I am new to SQL Server and I have used older versions of MS Access for a few years.
I am not certain what the problem might be, but these are some considerations that come to mind:
try deleting and recreating your linked tables. Perhaps an update to the table structure (or view, if you're linked to a view) has invalidated some of the metadata stored in the table link in your front end.
does your table have a primary key? If not, you really need one. There really is no such thing as a properly-designed data table in a relational database that is PK-less.
does your table have a timestamp? If not, add one, as this helps Access keep track of whether or not the data has changed on the server.
However, let me add that none of these issues manifest themselves exactly with the symptoms you've described, so they may not help.