Linking Access 2003 .mdb to SQL backend

#1

I have a Access 2003 front_end and a SQL Server back end. After I
have linked the tables I can read all the tables okay but can't write
to them. Any idea what am I doing wrong?

Also in creating the DNS I am given the choice of 'SQL Native Client'
or 'SQL Server'. What's the difference?

#2

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 05:35:41 -0800 (PST), colin spalding
<colin.mardell (AT) btopenworld (DOT) com> wrote:

Tables without a primary key are so dangerous Access treats them as
readonly. Add PKs. Relink.

-Tom.
Microsoft Access MVP

Quote:

I have a Access 2003 front_end and a SQL Server back end. After I
have linked the tables I can read all the tables okay but can't write
to them. Any idea what am I doing wrong?

Also in creating the DNS I am given the choice of 'SQL Native Client'
or 'SQL Server'. What's the difference?

#3

Tom van Stiphout <tom7744.no.spam (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

Tables without a primary key are so dangerous Access treats them as
readonly. Add PKs. Relink.

Also add TimeStamp aka RowVersion fields to all tables which Access will be
accessing. This will improve form update performance.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

#4

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:17:50 GMT, "Tony Toews [MVP]"
<ttoews (AT) telusplanet (DOT) net> wrote:

A timestamp column IN ADDITION TO a Primary Key?
Certainly Access would not need two unique values to determine which
row's which?

-Tom.

Quote:

Tom van Stiphout <tom7744.no.spam (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote:

Tables without a primary key are so dangerous Access treats them as
readonly. Add PKs. Relink.

Also add TimeStamp aka RowVersion fields to all tables which Access will be
accessing. This will improve form update performance.

Tony

#5

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:45:28 -0700, Tom van Stiphout wrote:

Quote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:17:50 GMT, "Tony Toews [MVP]"
ttoews (AT) telusplanet (DOT) net> wrote:

A timestamp column IN ADDITION TO a Primary Key? Certainly Access would
not need two unique values to determine which row's which?

The Timestamp simplifies the test against the edit buffer to see if the
record has been changed on the server. It's not for identifying the row.

--
Rick Brandt, Microsoft Access MVP
Email (as appropriate) to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

#6

"David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet (AT) dfenton (DOT) com.invalid> wrote:

Quote:

I've just made it a practice of putting a timestamp field in all my
SQL Server tables (I wouldn't ever have tables with a PK, so that's
not something I had to add to my repertory when moving to SQL
Server).

Presumably there's a not in "I wouldn't ever have tables with a PK, "

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Linking Access 2003 .mdb to SQL backend

comp.databases.ms-access comp.databases.ms-access

Linking Access 2003 .mdb to SQL backend - 01-20-2009 , 07:35 AM

Re: Linking Access 2003 .mdb to SQL backend - 01-20-2009 , 07:59 AM

Re: Linking Access 2003 .mdb to SQL backend - 01-24-2009 , 03:17 PM

Re: Linking Access 2003 .mdb to SQL backend - 01-24-2009 , 07:45 PM

Re: Linking Access 2003 .mdb to SQL backend - 01-24-2009 , 08:47 PM

Re: Linking Access 2003 .mdb to SQL backend - 01-25-2009 , 11:05 PM