Search results for query: *

Alright. Thanks!

Right. The MET field refers to the harvest method. We keep track of several different ways. Some, but not all METs, mean a new pedigree has been created. In order to maintain the ability to track history & performance, I want to keep the same pedigree if the MET is IN(B,C,D,P,Y). If it is an M...

I almost forgot. My original Q was about grouping within one component of a composite key. It probably doesn't make sense. From my original post... My immediate question is about the [Met] field. we use alpha codes: B,C,D,P,Y. For this group we behave one way & SelNo does not require a change...

Thank you for your response(s). That was, I think, what I wanted to hear. I did not expect keeping the composite as the primary key, though. I'll give this a try...I may be back for more help later. Thanks again to both of you for helping. I really appreciate it.

Thank you. I appreciate your comment about autonumbers. People seem to be strongly split on this topic and I could use help deciding. Thanks for the links genomon.

Now it is the combination of the 7 fields I listed; see example at end of that list and again here (X004988DAS0901). Why? I have thought, perhaps incorrectly, that it is clumsy and requires all 7 fields participate in relationships as opposed to just a single number representing them. I thought...

First, let me state first that I inherited this breeding system and design. Slowly, I'm try to make changes changes to make it more flexible. It is used by only 2-3 people but it is important to our company research work and holds 20-years data. >> I would like to convert a compound primary key...