Ver. 6.09 Unused Person ID's

[Glen70 0]

I just noticed that in ONE of my two separate projects, unused person ID numbers are not available in the F2 picklist for assigning to new people. My second project continues to behave just like TMG always has. The old, unused numbers (made available through merging people) can be selected from the F2 picklist.

 

Not that this is a big deal, but it kind of bothers me when a program acts kind of unpredictably. Has anyone else encounterd this, and do you know how to correct the problem.

 

Thanks,

Glen

[Vera Nagel 0]

I just noticed that in ONE of my two separate projects, unused person ID numbers are not available in the F2 picklist for assigning to new people. My second project continues to behave just like TMG always has. The old, unused numbers (made available through merging people) can be selected from the F2 picklist.

 

Not that this is a big deal, but it kind of bothers me when a program acts kind of unpredictably. Has anyone else encounterd this, and do you know how to correct the problem.

 

Thanks,

Glen

 

Glen,

 

so are you saying that the "F2 picklist for the ID-number field" is empty and you don't get any number to select from it?

 

Or do I have a total misunderstanding here and you are only referring to "old, unused numbers"? If so sorry for that.

 

May be you want to give this a try:

Use TMG's maintenance routines (Validate File Integrity and Optimize) if you haven't done recently and see if that perhaps helps.

[Glen70 0]

Hi Vera,

 

Nope, the F2 picklist does appear, and it's not empty. What's different is that it now includes only NEW and previously unused numbers.

 

In the past whenever I merged people, their old ID numbers appeared at the top of the picklist. I could select them and use the numbers for new people I entered.

 

This time I discovered a family that I entered twice. I merged them to eliminate the duplicates. Then later when I went to add some completely new people and selected F2 to get to those old ID numbers, I noticed that the old numbers were not in the list. The list began with the next highest, never before used number. The old numbers just seem to have disappeared.

 

And the strange thing is that in my other, separate project, I am not seeing this behavior. Older, no longer used numbers are still available in the picklist. ??????

Glen

[Vera Nagel 0]

Hi Vera,

 

Nope, the F2 picklist does appear, and it's not empty. What's different is that it now includes only NEW and previously unused numbers.

 

In the past whenever I merged people, their old ID numbers appeared at the top of the picklist. I could select them and use the numbers for new people I entered.

 

This time I discovered a family that I entered twice. I merged them to eliminate the duplicates. Then later when I went to add some completely new people and selected F2 to get to those old ID numbers, I noticed that the old numbers were not in the list. The list began with the next highest, never before used number. The old numbers just seem to have disappeared.

 

And the strange thing is that in my other, separate project, I am not seeing this behavior. Older, no longer used numbers are still available in the picklist. ??????

Glen

 

Thanks, Glen.

 

After the merge have you already used TMG's maintenance routines (Validate File Integrity and Optimize)?

If not I would suggest that you give it a try.... perhaps it helps.

[Glen70 0]

>>After the merge have you already used TMG's maintenance routines (Validate File Integrity and Optimize)?

If not I would suggest that you give it a try.... perhaps it helps

 

Oops... forgot to mention that in my previous message. I have run Validate File Integrety, Optimize and Reindex. None of these made the missing ID numbers return.

 

Glen

[Vera Nagel 0]

And the strange thing is that in my other, separate project, I am not seeing this behavior. Older, no longer used numbers are still available in the picklist. ??????

Glen

 

And you are running the same TMG version on both machines? Which one(s) are you running?

 

Please allow me another - may be unnecessary - question:

If you search your project where you see this for those "old, no longer used ID #" what do you get?

Just a guess to be sure they really are no longer in use for any kind of unintended reason...

[Glen70 0]

Vera,

I just figured out what happened with these numbers - and I need to say "thank you" for your suggestions - and also say "sorry" for basically wasting your time. It's kind of lucky that I could figure out what happened, but as it turns out, there actually weren't any missing numbers.

 

This afternoon when cleaning up my desk, I found the notes I made when I "merged away" two families and some relatives earlier this week. I'm usually pretty careful when I do merges to make sure I don't lose anyone, so there's usually ID numbers and other information on my notes. I had added all these people about two weeks ago, and then discovered early this week that I had a duplicate set of about a dozen people. So I merged out all those people early this week.

 

Then yesterday when I added some new people, I noticed that there weren't any "holes" in the list of numbers that appeared in the picklist for new person ID's. That's what triggered my initial message on this topic. When I looked at my notes a few hours ago, I realized that all those people I added about two weeks ago, and then eliminated a few days ago, had been assigned new, unused ID numbers. When I eliminated them, their old ID's just happened to become the lowest, sequential numbers available in the picklist.

 

Usually when doing something like that, I would have eliminated people with some of the lower, earlier assigned numbers. But this time, I just happened to add in one big block of people, and then take the same people out a few weeks later.

 

So the program did exactly what it should have done.

 

Sorry for posting a problem that really didn't happen - operator error, I guess.

 

Glen

[Vera Nagel 0]

I am very glad to hear the problem is solved - always best possible news.

 

No need to say: sorry, Glen.

You are welcome.

[Michael Hannah 0]

I agree that there should be an option to completely eliminate this sentence. And echoing Donald Schulteis' comment about the two phases of a project, for the "gatherine facts" phase I feel a sentence like "no children separately entered in this database" would at least be more accurate.

 

I agree that there should be an option to completely eliminate this sentence. And echoing Donald Schulteis' comment about the two phases of a project, for the "gatherine facts" phase I feel a sentence like "no children separately entered in this database" would at least be more accurate.

 

Oops! posted to the wrong thread. Please ignore.