Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

I want to insert repetitive information in multiple fields

Discussion in 'Information Technology' started by Tony B, Jul 28, 2006.

  1. Tony B

    Tony B
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I am entering data in a table and I need to add the county to 600 fields. is
    there an easier way than cut and paste?
     
  2. Tom Wickerath

    Tom Wickerath
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Sure. It's called an Update Query. Start by creating a normal SELECT query
    that selects just the records that you want to update, by applying the
    appropriate criteria. Once you have a query that is returning only the
    desired records, convert it into an Update query. In query design view, click
    on Query > Update Query. You should see a new "Update To:" row in the QBE
    grid. Enter the name of the country into this field. Then run the query.

    See article #7 at this link for more information:
    http://office.microsoft.com/en-au/assistance/CH063653171033.aspx


    Tom Wickerath
    Microsoft Access MVP

    http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/expert_contributors.html
    http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/search.html
    __________________________________________


    "Tony B" wrote:

    > I am entering data in a table and I need to add the county to 600 fields. is
    > there an easier way than cut and paste?
     
  3. Joseph Meehan

    Joseph Meehan
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Tony B wrote:
    > I am entering data in a table and I need to add the county to 600
    > fields. is there an easier way than cut and paste?


    I wonder if you really want to do that? Maybe you want to consider how
    normalized your table structure is? Note: This is just a suggestion to
    consider it, it may not need normalization .

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
     
  4. aaron.kempf@gmail.com

    aaron.kempf@gmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    the real answer is called 'query analyzer'

    if you used Access Data Projects you could use a real tool to send 50
    sql statements to your database if you want.

    in MDB you have to loop through 50 times and fire a sql statement.

    in SQL Server it is 100,000 times easier.

    put them all in the same place
    have a sproc that runs multiple statements??

    query analyzer

    update mytable set column1 = 'my new value' where column1 is null
    go
    update mytable set column2 = 'my new value' where column2 is null
    go
    update mytable set column3 = 'my new value' where column3 is null


    you just can't do that in mdb without programming
    in query analyzer it is simple
     
  5. Tom Wickerath

    Tom Wickerath
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Aaron,

    You must have posted your answer to the wrong question? The original poster
    only needs to update one field, not three.


    Tom Wickerath
    Microsoft Access MVP

    http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/expert_contributors.html
    http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/search.html
    __________________________________________

    "aaron . kempf @ gmail . com" wrote:

    > the real answer is called 'query analyzer'
    >
    > if you used Access Data Projects you could use a real tool to send 50
    > sql statements to your database if you want.
    >
    > in MDB you have to loop through 50 times and fire a sql statement.
    >
    > in SQL Server it is 100,000 times easier.
    >
    > put them all in the same place
    > have a sproc that runs multiple statements??
    >
    > query analyzer
    >
    > update mytable set column1 = 'my new value' where column1 is null
    > go
    > update mytable set column2 = 'my new value' where column2 is null
    > go
    > update mytable set column3 = 'my new value' where column3 is null
    >
    >
    > you just can't do that in mdb without programming
    > in query analyzer it is simple
    >
    >
     
  6. aaron.kempf@gmail.com

    aaron.kempf@gmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    sorry when he referred to 'fields' I assumed he was talking about
    columns.

    I had no idea he was talking about rows.



    he technically said he needed to update 600 fields.




    Tom Wickerath wrote:
    > Aaron,
    >
    > You must have posted your answer to the wrong question? The original poster
    > only needs to update one field, not three.
    >
    >
    > Tom Wickerath
    > Microsoft Access MVP
    >
    > http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/expert_contributors.html
    > http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/search.html
    > __________________________________________
    >
    > "aaron . kempf @ gmail . com" wrote:
    >
    > > the real answer is called 'query analyzer'
    > >
    > > if you used Access Data Projects you could use a real tool to send 50
    > > sql statements to your database if you want.
    > >
    > > in MDB you have to loop through 50 times and fire a sql statement.
    > >
    > > in SQL Server it is 100,000 times easier.
    > >
    > > put them all in the same place
    > > have a sproc that runs multiple statements??
    > >
    > > query analyzer
    > >
    > > update mytable set column1 = 'my new value' where column1 is null
    > > go
    > > update mytable set column2 = 'my new value' where column2 is null
    > > go
    > > update mytable set column3 = 'my new value' where column3 is null
    > >
    > >
    > > you just can't do that in mdb without programming
    > > in query analyzer it is simple
    > >
    > >
     
  7. Tom Wickerath

    Tom Wickerath
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    You're right. I didn't notice that when I read it the first time. But, we
    both know it wouldn't have been possible to have 600 fields in a .mdb table.


    Tom Wickerath
    Microsoft Access MVP

    http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/expert_contributors.html
    http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/search.html
    __________________________________________

    "aaron.kempf@gmail.com" wrote:

    > sorry when he referred to 'fields' I assumed he was talking about
    > columns.
    >
    > I had no idea he was talking about rows.
    >
    >
    >
    > he technically said he needed to update 600 fields.
     
  8. aaron.kempf@gmail.com

    aaron.kempf@gmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    the kid never said it was MDB

    microsoft.public.access has to do with MDB and ADP. You can't assume
    people are using MDB just because they aren't in the ADP group.

    it's not my fault that MS hasn't made a newsgroup

    'microsoft.public.obsolete.mdb'


    Tom Wickerath wrote:
    > You're right. I didn't notice that when I read it the first time. But, we
    > both know it wouldn't have been possible to have 600 fields in a .mdb table.
    >
    >
    > Tom Wickerath
    > Microsoft Access MVP
    >
    > http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/expert_contributors.html
    > http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/search.html
    > __________________________________________
    >
    > "aaron.kempf@gmail.com" wrote:
    >
    > > sorry when he referred to 'fields' I assumed he was talking about
    > > columns.
    > >
    > > I had no idea he was talking about rows.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > he technically said he needed to update 600 fields.
     
  9. aaron.kempf@gmail.com

    aaron.kempf@gmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    and for the record; i've had high field counts in ADP all the time.

    single-handedly that was the reason i first got into ADP.

    not every database in the world SHOULD follow 3rd normal form.


    Tom Wickerath wrote:
    > You're right. I didn't notice that when I read it the first time. But, we
    > both know it wouldn't have been possible to have 600 fields in a .mdb table.
    >
    >
    > Tom Wickerath
    > Microsoft Access MVP
    >
    > http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/expert_contributors.html
    > http://www.access.qbuilt.com/html/search.html
    > __________________________________________
    >
    > "aaron.kempf@gmail.com" wrote:
    >
    > > sorry when he referred to 'fields' I assumed he was talking about
    > > columns.
    > >
    > > I had no idea he was talking about rows.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > he technically said he needed to update 600 fields.
     

Share This Page