J
Joe
Is it possible to embed a document in a form that will be specific to a
single record?
If so, how can it be done?
Thanks.
Joe
single record?
If so, how can it be done?
Thanks.
Joe
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A
a a r o n . k e m p f
It is called an OLE Object.
You can do it in Access..
Or under SQL Server; you can use either the IMAGE or the VarBinary
datatype.. from what I understand.
Either way-- using SQL instead of Access would allow you to use
functionality such as 'full text search' where it is easy to look
through each of the embedded word docs.. and look for a particular
phrase.
Neither google nor MS Access can look for keywords _IN_ these
documents.. But SQL Server sure can.
The 'Full Text Search' capabilities that I am referring to - these are
now a piece of SQL 2005 Express. So it's all free.
-Aaron
You can do it in Access..
Or under SQL Server; you can use either the IMAGE or the VarBinary
datatype.. from what I understand.
Either way-- using SQL instead of Access would allow you to use
functionality such as 'full text search' where it is easy to look
through each of the embedded word docs.. and look for a particular
phrase.
Neither google nor MS Access can look for keywords _IN_ these
documents.. But SQL Server sure can.
The 'Full Text Search' capabilities that I am referring to - these are
now a piece of SQL 2005 Express. So it's all free.
-Aaron
G
George
Yes. but there are other things to consider.
What kind of document do you want to embed? Why do you want to do this?
It might make some difference in choosing an appropriate solution.
What kind of document do you want to embed? Why do you want to do this?
It might make some difference in choosing an appropriate solution.
A
a a r o n . k e m p f
No -- it doesn't make a difference which document type.
SQL Server supports all the Office Document Types.. (except Access
MDB) for searching for keywords; etc).
Access doesn't have 1/10th of the same functionality.. it breaks down
all the time.
and Access is more expensive than SQL Server.
Your database can either
a) _FIT_ documents reliably
or
b) it gets so bloated and it hits the 1gb limit
It can either
a) ALLOW FULLTEXT SEARCH OF ANY OFFICE DOCUMENT TYPE
or
b) it's an obsolete database that can't do this.
SQL Server supports all the Office Document Types.. (except Access
MDB) for searching for keywords; etc).
Access doesn't have 1/10th of the same functionality.. it breaks down
all the time.
and Access is more expensive than SQL Server.
Your database can either
a) _FIT_ documents reliably
or
b) it gets so bloated and it hits the 1gb limit
It can either
a) ALLOW FULLTEXT SEARCH OF ANY OFFICE DOCUMENT TYPE
or
b) it's an obsolete database that can't do this.
G
George
Let's go back and READ the poster's ACTUAL question. Nowhere does it mention
SQL Server. Nowhere does it refer to full text search. The question was
whether it is possible to "embed a document in a form".
Now, a thoughtful, caring person, wishing to provide a relevant, useful
appropriate answer, would ask clarifying questions in hopes of
understanding the ACTUAL requirement sufficiently to offer a relevant,
useful, appropriate answer.
Anything less is irresponsible and potentially dangerous, as was your
response to the question about eliminating rows in a report.
For several weeks I've read your posts with a mixture of pity, amusement and
chagrin. When your posts are incoherent and internally contradictory, it
makes me feel sorry for you. When they are merely silly and off-topic, they
often make me laugh. When you indulge in vitriol and vulgarity, it makes me
angry.
However, when you crossed the line and began to make suggestions which could
result in a poster destroying their own data, that is unforgivably
irresponsible.
message
No -- it doesn't make a difference which document type.
SQL Server supports all the Office Document Types.. (except Access
MDB) for searching for keywords; etc).
Access doesn't have 1/10th of the same functionality.. it breaks down
all the time.
and Access is more expensive than SQL Server.
Your database can either
a) _FIT_ documents reliably
or
b) it gets so bloated and it hits the 1gb limit
It can either
a) ALLOW FULLTEXT SEARCH OF ANY OFFICE DOCUMENT TYPE
or
b) it's an obsolete database that can't do this.
SQL Server. Nowhere does it refer to full text search. The question was
whether it is possible to "embed a document in a form".
Now, a thoughtful, caring person, wishing to provide a relevant, useful
appropriate answer, would ask clarifying questions in hopes of
understanding the ACTUAL requirement sufficiently to offer a relevant,
useful, appropriate answer.
Anything less is irresponsible and potentially dangerous, as was your
response to the question about eliminating rows in a report.
For several weeks I've read your posts with a mixture of pity, amusement and
chagrin. When your posts are incoherent and internally contradictory, it
makes me feel sorry for you. When they are merely silly and off-topic, they
often make me laugh. When you indulge in vitriol and vulgarity, it makes me
angry.
However, when you crossed the line and began to make suggestions which could
result in a poster destroying their own data, that is unforgivably
irresponsible.
message
No -- it doesn't make a difference which document type.
SQL Server supports all the Office Document Types.. (except Access
MDB) for searching for keywords; etc).
Access doesn't have 1/10th of the same functionality.. it breaks down
all the time.
and Access is more expensive than SQL Server.
Your database can either
a) _FIT_ documents reliably
or
b) it gets so bloated and it hits the 1gb limit
It can either
a) ALLOW FULLTEXT SEARCH OF ANY OFFICE DOCUMENT TYPE
or
b) it's an obsolete database that can't do this.
A
a a r o n . k e m p f
they want to store documents in a database.
you Access crybabies around here will say 'oh but it will _BLOAT_'.
So the answer is move to SQL Server.
I just don't need your personal attacks.
-Aaron
you Access crybabies around here will say 'oh but it will _BLOAT_'.
So the answer is move to SQL Server.
I just don't need your personal attacks.
-Aaron
A
a a r o n . k e m p f
unforgivably irresponsibile?
you're the kid that is reccomending an obsolete unstable database.
_NOW_ you begin to see why _I_ am pissed off?
You are the one that is advocating russian roulette with your data (by
choosing a format that easily corrupts).
Sorry kid.. I'm just glad that you finally 'got it'.
I am the one out here that gives a crap about their data.
You are the kinda tard that makes breaches like TJ Maxx possible.
Thanks
-Aaron
you're the kid that is reccomending an obsolete unstable database.
_NOW_ you begin to see why _I_ am pissed off?
You are the one that is advocating russian roulette with your data (by
choosing a format that easily corrupts).
Sorry kid.. I'm just glad that you finally 'got it'.
I am the one out here that gives a crap about their data.
You are the kinda tard that makes breaches like TJ Maxx possible.
Thanks
-Aaron
G
George
Inasmuchas I've never lost data to corruption in any Access database, I
guess I must be doing something right after all.
Inasmuchas I've never worked for TJ Maxx, you can't possibly hold me
responsible for anything that happened over there, but, hey, maybe you know
something about the incident that I don't?
It surely does bear repeating:
Irresponsible is telling someone to DELETE their data without taking the
time to read the actual question they posted. If that person had been a real
novice, and had followed your advice, you'd have been DIRECTLY responsible
for the loss. Take some time and really thing through the implications of
that for a while.
guess I must be doing something right after all.
Inasmuchas I've never worked for TJ Maxx, you can't possibly hold me
responsible for anything that happened over there, but, hey, maybe you know
something about the incident that I don't?
It surely does bear repeating:
Irresponsible is telling someone to DELETE their data without taking the
time to read the actual question they posted. If that person had been a real
novice, and had followed your advice, you'd have been DIRECTLY responsible
for the loss. Take some time and really thing through the implications of
that for a while.
G
George
Please, go back and READ the poster's actual question:
"Is it possible to embed a document in a form that will be specific to a
single record?"
Now, before I leap to any conclusions about a question like that, I really
like to figure out what is going on. That way I know whatever I suggest is
reasonable, practical and appropriate.
This poster may, or a may not, want to store the documents in a database. He
seems to think, at this point, that he does want to do that although the
question refers to embedding documents in a form. The poster may or may not
understand the implications of doing that. If, after hearing what the
consequences might be, he chooses to proceed, he would do so armed with that
knowledge. Or, armed with an alternative, he just might have decided to
invest in a migration to SQL Server.
But it is not helpful to chant your "Move to SQL Server" mantra without
attempting to learn what the real requirement is, or whether embedding
documents in a form makes any sense or not, or whether full text searches
and whatever else you can do with SQL Server have any relevance whatsoever
to the issue at hand. BTW, it seems to have escaped your notice that
embedding documents in a form is NOT something that can even be addressed by
"moving to SQL Server". Forms are simply NOT part of SQL Server. You see? A
useful answer has to emcompass the facts of the question as presented, not
as you would like them to be.
You know, I suspect you are actually a bright young man, and that you could
probably offer useful answers to many questions if you really wanted to do
so. Part of the process of maturing as a human being is learning how to
apply your knowledge in constructive ways. Another significant step in
becoming a grown up is learning to channel one's frustrations in a positive
direction.
If you can learn to do those two things, you might even be able to present
your love for SQL Server in such a way as to make it seem like a useful
alternative in those situations where it is appropriate.
Oddly enough, I haven't given up hope that you'll eventually get there. I'd
like to think I'll be around long enough to see that happen, but at my age,
there are no guarantees.
"Is it possible to embed a document in a form that will be specific to a
single record?"
Now, before I leap to any conclusions about a question like that, I really
like to figure out what is going on. That way I know whatever I suggest is
reasonable, practical and appropriate.
This poster may, or a may not, want to store the documents in a database. He
seems to think, at this point, that he does want to do that although the
question refers to embedding documents in a form. The poster may or may not
understand the implications of doing that. If, after hearing what the
consequences might be, he chooses to proceed, he would do so armed with that
knowledge. Or, armed with an alternative, he just might have decided to
invest in a migration to SQL Server.
But it is not helpful to chant your "Move to SQL Server" mantra without
attempting to learn what the real requirement is, or whether embedding
documents in a form makes any sense or not, or whether full text searches
and whatever else you can do with SQL Server have any relevance whatsoever
to the issue at hand. BTW, it seems to have escaped your notice that
embedding documents in a form is NOT something that can even be addressed by
"moving to SQL Server". Forms are simply NOT part of SQL Server. You see? A
useful answer has to emcompass the facts of the question as presented, not
as you would like them to be.
You know, I suspect you are actually a bright young man, and that you could
probably offer useful answers to many questions if you really wanted to do
so. Part of the process of maturing as a human being is learning how to
apply your knowledge in constructive ways. Another significant step in
becoming a grown up is learning to channel one's frustrations in a positive
direction.
If you can learn to do those two things, you might even be able to present
your love for SQL Server in such a way as to make it seem like a useful
alternative in those situations where it is appropriate.
Oddly enough, I haven't given up hope that you'll eventually get there. I'd
like to think I'll be around long enough to see that happen, but at my age,
there are no guarantees.
S
So Sorry For Poor Aaron
a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o said:they want to store documents in a database.
The original post in this thread says nothing about wanting to store
documents in the database; the question is about embedding documents in
_FORMS_. A reasonable presumption is that the documents are already stored
in or outside of the database.
you Access crybabies around here will say 'oh but it will _BLOAT_'.
I haven't seen anyone either crying or saying that here. Maybe the
experienced Acess people know, as you do not seem to, that is true only if
you don't know better than to store the documents in OLE Objects (as you
suggested) to avoid bloating, and only if you aren't using Access 2003 or
earlier.
So the answer is move to SQL Server.
This question was not about the datastore, it was about the user interface.
The answer is not to suggest moving to SQL Server without any mention of the
possibly considerable costs of doing so.
I just don't need your personal attacks.
Disagreeing with you is not a "personal attack". Calling people names like
"crybabies" or "idiots" as you often do _is_ a personal attack.
Aren't you skating on thin ice with your probation by continually trolling
for arguments, as you do? It seems very close to cyberstalking. Do you feel
compelled to test the limits against which the court will allow you to push?
Note that this is not a "personal attack", as your pleading guilty to
cyberstalking and your probation is a matter of public record.
So Sorry For Poor Aaron
A
a a r o n . k e m p f
I'm so sorry that your database is too bloated to use the Ole
datatype. Maybe you should blame the db and not me.
I don't have the same problem for SQL Server.
I can easily use fulltext search to search the text of word docs,
spreadsheets; etc.
-Aaron
datatype. Maybe you should blame the db and not me.
I don't have the same problem for SQL Server.
I can easily use fulltext search to search the text of word docs,
spreadsheets; etc.
-Aaron
A
a a r o n . k e m p f
homedude was asking about how to get rid of the data.
He wasn't asking about how to filter it out-- they said 'get rid of
it'.
-Aaron
He wasn't asking about how to filter it out-- they said 'get rid of
it'.
-Aaron