Resequencing Access table records

I would appreciate a solution to the following problem:

I have setup an small Access data with say 300 records. The main table is
indexed by a sequential number (not a counter) that is allocated manually
each time a new record is added.

What is the easiest way to renumber the main and related tables (one-to-many) when
entering a new record into the range 1-300. For example record 200 exists
but a new entry requiring to be numbered 200 is to be added to the table.
How can it be added with the previous 200 becoming 201 and all subsequent
numbers being incremented by 1.

(I know this flies in the face of relational theory)

Any suggestions/responses would be helpful.

Darren Morris
Supreme Court of Victoria

darrenmAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

cymbolicCommented:
Conventionally, you would not use an identity field as an actual value.   That is once you pick a primary key, that subsequently could become a foreign key in other tables, linking their rows to our primary rows, you never want to change it.  Then, if you have an attribute of the row that contais an actual value (like your numbers), it would be another column in the table.  If you are dealing with smaller numbers of rows, you really don't need an index on the field, since a table scan will be very quick anyway.

But, if you must do this, I would get a read only recordset of all essential row columns (the one's you mean to change and the primary key) containing values above the one you are changing.  Then drop the index, increment your values, and update all effected rows, using .execute methods and update SQL.  Then recreate your index.  I think this would be faster than trying to change the indexed field while the index is still active.  Of course, once you get into large numbers of rows, you'll have to ask your user to pack a lunch each time he adds a low numbered row!

Alternatively, while retaining your index, you could get the rows to be changed in descending sequence by your numbered field, then update them back in that order to avoid index key conflicts, assuming you have set this column for no duplicates.

Either way, by design,you have made an application that will not scale up to large numbers of rows and/or multiuser.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Microsoft Access

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.