Problem using linked tables instead of ADP

Hi
I know I probably shouldn't be doing this but...
I have a table on an MSDE database that has a bigInt for the primary key. If
I try to link to this table from Access (XP) using an ODBC connection the
table links ok. The first time I opened the table it was ok. Since then the
primary key data type is interpretted as text and all the records (though
still there) have "#deleted" in each column of every row? I have tried
relinking the table and still get he same problem.
Any ideas whats going on?
Thanks in advance
Mark
Have you linked the table such that Access recognizes the primary key?
"Mark" wrote:

> Hi
> I know I probably shouldn't be doing this but...
> I have a table on an MSDE database that has a bigInt for the primary key. If
> I try to link to this table from Access (XP) using an ODBC connection the
> table links ok. The first time I opened the table it was ok. Since then the
> primary key data type is interpretted as text and all the records (though
> still there) have "#deleted" in each column of every row? I have tried
> relinking the table and still get he same problem.
> Any ideas whats going on?
> Thanks in advance
> Mark
>
>
|||Hi Monte

> Have you linked the table such that Access recognizes the primary key?
>
As far as I know, yes? I wasn't prompted to select a primary key and looking
at the table design from within access shows the primary key present but as
text instead of number.
Cheers
Mark
|||I have also seen this problem occur when I have "bit" type fields in the SQL
table, and don't have a default value (say zero) and allow nulls checked.
"Mark" wrote:

> Hi Monte
>
> As far as I know, yes? I wasn't prompted to select a primary key and looking
> at the table design from within access shows the primary key present but as
> text instead of number.
> Cheers
> Mark
>
>
|||"Monte" <Monte@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:46D395BA-E150-4C96-9EDE-AF4776FBC18A@.microsoft.com...
>I have also seen this problem occur when I have "bit" type fields in the
>SQL
> table, and don't have a default value (say zero) and allow nulls checked.
Monte
Scary stuff hey :o{
I'm not going to worry about it too much as I was just playing to see the
difference in performance etc. Would still be interested to know why, may
have another look later...
Cheers
Mark