|
tech
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Copy expressions with one change in each of 36 boxesHere's the deal, I have a report with 36 "boxes" each with 3 expressions
that look like this =DSum("[this]","there","[they] = 'who' AND [that] = 17") OK, the "who" changes in each of the three expressions that are in each of the 36 boxes, the "17" changes in each of the 36 boxes but is the same for the three "who"s in each box and the "there" changes in each report and is based on a different query. There will be around 250 different reports (and queries) and it's going to be very time consuming to go into each box of each report and change all three to the new "there" (36*3*250). Also, the boxes are not in any kind of order. HELP!!!!! So far, I've only got one report going and it took a long time, I have copied it to the second report and am in the process of changing all the "there"s for that report but there has to be an easier way. There will be one HUGE table, probably around 25000 records when it's completed and there is not really a way to break that up that would assist in this. I think I may have bitten off more than I can chew but any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Sabra
You've described a "how" ... how you are trying to do something. It would help me better understand your situation if you describe the "what" and "why". What do you hope to accomplish when <SOMETHING> works? Why (i.e., the business need) are you trying to accomplish this? More info, please Jeff Boyce <Access MVP> Show quote "Sabra DeJournett via AccessMonster.com" <fo***@AccessMonster.com> wrote in message news:d9298f2f82b74b9e8cc292d8c95f6f97@AccessMonster.com... > Here's the deal, I have a report with 36 "boxes" each with 3 expressions > that look like this =DSum("[this]","there","[they] = 'who' AND [that] = 17") > OK, the "who" changes in each of the three expressions that are in each of > the 36 boxes, the "17" changes in each of the 36 boxes but is the same for > the three "who"s in each box and the "there" changes in each report and is > based on a different query. There will be around 250 different reports > (and queries) and it's going to be very time consuming to go into each box > of each report and change all three to the new "there" (36*3*250). Also, > the boxes are not in any kind of order. HELP!!!!! So far, I've only got > one report going and it took a long time, I have copied it to the second > report and am in the process of changing all the "there"s for that report > but there has to be an easier way. There will be one HUGE table, probably > around 25000 records when it's completed and there is not really a way to > break that up that would assist in this. I think I may have bitten off > more than I can chew but any assistance would be greatly appreciated. > > -- > Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com This is all related to land records. I'm trying to find out how many acres
(the dsum value), "who" (only three 'who's I'm concerned with but there are probably 1000 or more) has leased in each of 36 sections (that) for each of 250 different township/range combinations (there). The relevant portion of the records is Joe Somebody owns X acres (dsum value) that are leased by They (who) in section (that), township and range (there). This needs to be in a 36 section map, row one is section 6-1, row 2 is 7-12, row 3 is 18-13 and so on so that's why I said they're not in an order. Does that make sense? Bet you wish that you had put those Domain functions in a query and not in
each report! Not to mention, the performance hit when running 36+ queries on the fly every time the report is previewed/printed. Checkout "Speed Ferret" or "Find & Replace" (my recommendation) as add-ins that will do global find and replace operations in your reports. -Ed Show quote "Sabra DeJournett via AccessMonster.com" <fo***@AccessMonster.com> wrote in message news:d9298f2f82b74b9e8cc292d8c95f6f97@AccessMonster.com... > Here's the deal, I have a report with 36 "boxes" each with 3 expressions > that look like this =DSum("[this]","there","[they] = 'who' AND [that] = > 17") > OK, the "who" changes in each of the three expressions that are in each of > the 36 boxes, the "17" changes in each of the 36 boxes but is the same for > the three "who"s in each box and the "there" changes in each report and is > based on a different query. There will be around 250 different reports > (and queries) and it's going to be very time consuming to go into each box > of each report and change all three to the new "there" (36*3*250). Also, > the boxes are not in any kind of order. HELP!!!!! So far, I've only got > one report going and it took a long time, I have copied it to the second > report and am in the process of changing all the "there"s for that report > but there has to be an easier way. There will be one HUGE table, probably > around 25000 records when it's completed and there is not really a way to > break that up that would assist in this. I think I may have bitten off > more than I can chew but any assistance would be greatly appreciated. > > -- > Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com Sabra
I understand a little more, but I'm still a bit confused, as you've used your current approach to define what and why. Let me try re-phrasing what I suspect you've told me, and you correct my mistakes... You have: > Persons In addition, you have a special system for designating pieces of land.> Land > Ownership of Land by Person > Lease of Land by Person I can't tell from what you've described if this means that the ONLY way you have to identify a particular piece of Land is by the special designators (section/township/range?) or ???? I'm also not clear yet on how you have structured your underlying data, but the description I offered above may represent the entity-relationship model you are already using. If not, how have you structured your data? Notice that in all this I have not yet begun to address how to report out information. Until the data going in is well-normalized, getting Access to report it out will be problematic. -- Show quoteGood luck Jeff Boyce <Access MVP> "Sabra DeJournett via AccessMonster.com" <fo***@AccessMonster.com> wrote in message news:0e8c528d4a534530bbf339410f141c4b@AccessMonster.com... > This is all related to land records. I'm trying to find out how many acres > (the dsum value), "who" (only three 'who's I'm concerned with but there are > probably 1000 or more) has leased in each of 36 sections (that) for each of > 250 different township/range combinations (there). > The relevant portion of the records is Joe Somebody owns X acres (dsum > value) that are leased by They (who) in section (that), township and range > (there). This needs to be in a 36 section map, row one is section 6-1, row > 2 is 7-12, row 3 is 18-13 and so on so that's why I said they're not in an > order. Does that make sense? > > -- > Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com OK, the records are as follows...
Record 1 Owner's Name - Joe Jones Location of Land Section - 1 Location of Land Township - 1N Location of Land Range - 1W Tract - SW/4 S/2 # of Acres Leased - 2.5 Lessee - Company A Record 2 Owner's Name - Jane Doe Location of Land Section - 1 Location of Land Township - 1N Location of Land Range - 1W Tract - NW/4 # of Acres Leased - 1 Lessee - Company B Record 3 Owner's Name - John Smith Location of Land Section - 1 Location of Land Township - 1N Location of Land Range - 1W Tract - NW/4 SW/4 W/2 # of Acres Leased - 1.5 Lessee - Company A so in the report for 1N-1W, I want it to say in the Section 1 "box": Company A - 4 Company B - 1 Each record is the same as above. At this point this is one HUGE table. Does this make it more understandable? Did I answer your questions? Never mind for all of this, I just discovered they have a program that
actually does this, thanks for all the input. Sabra DeJournett via AccessMonster.com wrote:
> Never mind for all of this, I just discovered they have a program that LOL!> actually does this, thanks for all the input. > Emily Litella, is that you? gls858 But wouldn't I have to have a query for every combination of section,
township and range? (36*250) or am I not understanding you correctly?  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics