Changeseed function

R

Ray S.

I have the Changeseed function suggested by Microsoft
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q287756
It was working fine until I replicated my database. Now, the function stops
and I get this error: Run-time error '-2147217887 (80040e21)' "Multiple-step
OLE DB operation generated errors. Check each OLE DB status value, if
available. No work was done." When I debug it highlights the code line
col.Properties("Seed") = lngSeed
the left side value shows what the current seed is, and the right side value
shows the new seed value that I pass through a form button...ChangeSeed ("tbl
jvsheet","jrnl_line_nbr",1)...my table and column...You can easily see what
is going on if you follow the link and look at the code

Anyway, it doesn't work now. I copy the code to a new module in a new
database, make a simple table, and it works perfectly. What explanation or
solution is there to my problem? Why doesn't it work in my replicated "design
master", or "replica" databases?
 
B

Brendan Reynolds

This function would not serve any useful purpose in a replicated MDB,
because when you replicate an MDB, the New Values property of all AutoNumber
fields is changed from Increment to Random.
 
R

Ray S.

That all sounds reasonable in the type of database I would never need. Mine
is an accounting database that requires line numbers to be sequential
starting from 1. I thought the changeseed was useful. There are no multiple
replicas synchronizing to the design master. The only reason I did it was
that when I work from home it takes too long to transfer information from the
server at work. I'll figure out a different solution, but it's disheartening
to know that when you change a database to replica, I can't un-replicate it.
I think I can recover my original from the server backup, but the whole thing
has been a minor nightmare.
 
R

Ray S.

By the Way,

The Autonumber is NOT changed to random in the design master, yet my
changeseed function does not work in it when all information is processed
from the master. Seeing as the "wisdom" of changing to random presupposes
that there would be multiple replicas (a neither neccessary nor required
supposition), does your fount of wisdom have an explanation for that, hon?
 
R

Ray S.

I looked at the design master, and the Autonumber has not been changed from
increment to random there. A useful function of using a replica is that for
which I was using it. I can input information from home without connecting to
the server - too slow - then syncronize with the design master at work. If I
only have one replica, there is no problem with conflicting syncronizations.
In addition, if I process all information from the design master (where the
Autonumber is incremental and not random), the changeseed function still does
not work. I'm trying to understand this. Any help? Although I think I'm gonna
try a different solution not using the changeseed anymore.
 
B

Brendan Reynolds

As a test, I created a replica of an existing, non-replicated MDB. Access
warned me that this would convert the MDB to a design master, and that this
would make changes to the database, and offered to make a back-up copy of
the MDB for me. It created this MDB in the same folder as the original MDB,
with the same name but with an extension of '.BAK'. If you want to restore
your MDB as it was before you replicated it, you might want to look for that
..BAK file.

The New Values property of all AutoNumber fields in the design master was
changed from Increment to Random. Note that this does not change the values
stored in AutoNumber fields in existing records, but the values assigned to
new records will be random. This is what I meant when I wrote that the
changeseed function would serve no useful purpose in a replicated MDB.

I would not recommend using AutoNumbers if you want sequential numbers. Try
the following KB article instead ...

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/210194/en-us

For more information about replication, see the following KB article, which
provides an overview as well as a link to an in-depth white paper on the
subject.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/208774/en-us

Good luck.
 
R

Ray S.

Granny,

I don't know why you are so patronizing, or in what "real world" you live,
but I work for a company that does 75 billion in international business. I
think that's a pretty real company. If you can't relate to what I was doing,
then I'm not sure you're living in a real world. On the other hand, I don't
know what to tell you other than what I see in front of me. You said the
Autonumber would change from increment to random. I did not do so in the
design master. That's a fact. I asked what explanation you might have. All
you came back with was more condescending and unuseful commentary extolling
your "experience". 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. I have one
replica. It is merely used to input data at home and then syncronize it with
my work database. Gee, that doesn't sound like a very real world problem that
many workers might have, does it? As it turns out, I have already gone way
past this and found another solution; but you were not only not helpful, but
insultingly self-aggrandizing.
 
R

Ray S.

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.
Click to expand...

Of course, if you felt that you were merely guessing at what my problem was,
you should have asked for more information, instead of taking the opportunity
to talk about how when you were young you used to walk seven miles to school,
"hon". I am very thankful and grateful that you won't be "wasting your time"
in the future with me.
 
F

Francois

I think the point in an accounting system using autonombers is to assure
transparency, that nothing was deleted. Which is why you can not use your
"own" numbering system nor random numbering.
I find the use of "hon" adressing somebody you are trying to explain
something to, to be parallel to the use of "pat" adressing an irish person or
"boy" adressing a coloured person. So don't.
Opfør jer ordentligt ellers er der ingen tur til legoland!

"Granny Spitz via AccessMonster.com" skrev:
 
A

Arvin Meyer [MVP]

Any system which never allows deletion promotes inaccuracy. What a good
accounting system does is to assure an audit trail of those items which are
deleted. The easiest was to do that is to flag items as deleted, and not
actually delete them. Subsequent queries and reports can then leave out the
"deleted" data with a simple Where clause.
 
Top