How can I Query all fields

B

Box666

I have a database, one table of which has approx 50 fields to it.

We now need to query each field in the table, I have tried to use the
"query grid" but you can only query about 9 fields. (as you appreciate
you have to drop a line in the grid to query the next field - thus you
can only query 9 fields at a time.)

How can I achieve this please.

In case it is important, I want to run this query from a form, where
the operator can just type in part of a reference code and then have
the answer viewed in a report on screen.

With thanks.

Bob
 
D

Douglas J. Steele

Just because the grid defaults to 9 rows of criteria doesn't mean it's
limited to that. You can insert extra rows under the Insert menu.
 
B

Box666

Just because the grid defaults to 9 rows of criteria doesn't mean it's
limited to that. You can insert extra rows under the Insert menu.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVPhttp://I.Am/DougSteele
(no e-mails, please!)











- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...

So simple - thank you
 
G

gls858

Box666 said:
I have a database, one table of which has approx 50 fields to it.

We now need to query each field in the table, I have tried to use the
"query grid" but you can only query about 9 fields. (as you appreciate
you have to drop a line in the grid to query the next field - thus you
can only query 9 fields at a time.)

How can I achieve this please.

In case it is important, I want to run this query from a form, where
the operator can just type in part of a reference code and then have
the answer viewed in a report on screen.

With thanks.

Bob
Click to expand...

Something just doesn't sound right here. Set criteria for 50 fields in
one query? Am I understanding that correctly? I find it hard to believe
this would be necessary. Probably indicates a design flaw in the
database. I could be wrong but this just sounds rather strange.

gls858
 
D

Douglas J. Steele

gls858 said:
Something just doesn't sound right here. Set criteria for 50 fields in
one query? Am I understanding that correctly? I find it hard to believe
this would be necessary. Probably indicates a design flaw in the database.
I could be wrong but this just sounds rather strange.
Click to expand...

Heck, having 50 fields in a single table sounds wrong to me, but I was just
answering the question, not passing judgement! <g>
 
Top