Forum Discussion

KathrynBowers's avatar
KathrynBowers
Qrew Member
2 months ago

Re-establishing relationships in migrated databases

I need to understand how to re-establish relationships on existing tables that I have migrated into Quickbase. I know am absolutely missing something that is probably pretty obvious. Its an MSAccess database, so its SQL compliant.

I have a table with important information in a field that I want to preserve. This is the field in the child table--lets call the field BigInfoValue (a numeric field) and the table ChildTable. 

I have a tiny table with other information in it that defines what the values in BigInfoValue mean. Lets call this BigInfoParent table, and lets call the fields BigInfoValue (a numeric field I want to relate the tables on which I've also designated the key field), BigInfoTerm, and BigInfoDefinition. 

I absolutely cannot figure out how to make the two tables link on BigInfoValue. When I try to create a table relationship, with BigInfoParent, Quickbase does not offer me BigInfoValue in the child table as a linking field. It creates a brand-new field called Related BigInfo something something. I've also tried to establish a table relationship with the RecordID field in BigInfoParent to BigInfoValue in the ChildTable. No dice. Quickbase just doesn't offer me the field that I think should be linked.

Any help would be appreciated.

1 Reply

  • Well, well, well! After taking a second look, it appears I had not actually made the linking value numeric after all! I could have sworn I had changed it! 

    I went back for a second look and--low-and-behold!--I guess I was right about one thing--it was something pretty obvious. Operator error. I probably changed the field from text to numeric but somehow didn't save the change.  The kind of thing that happens in an unfamiliar interface.

    This time, when I went back in to take another whack at it, I found my error.

    I also took the time to ensure that the new Record ID (in QB) and the old BigInfoValue (the former key field) had identical values for each record, so I could provide the link from the Record ID to the value I wanted in the child field. It seems like this is a better practice in case more values will be added to the parent table in future.

    Thank goodness I found my mistake!