I have data in excel, like below:
and, i have microsoft Word document, like below:
How to mail merge in microsoft word, one to Many row?
I want result like below in microsoft Word:
Thank You Very Much
This can be done, but it's a bit complex. There are a number of possible approaches, outlined at my website.
Since you show the desired result as a table, using a Database field is probably the optimal way to go about it. Insert Database is an old command that's no longer exposed in the Word UI by default. You'll find it in File/Options/Customize Ribbon or Quick Access Toolbar, under All Commands.
The command inserts a field with the name Database, via a set of dialog boxes:
Get Data is the same as what you see in mail merge when selecting the data source. This uses any valid connection method (these days, ODBC or OLE DB - the latter is the default) to bind to the data source. Select the data source containing the "many" information. (Note: the "one" side should be only the unique "one" information; the "many" side should be in a separate data source containing the unique identifier from the "one" side for each item on the "many" side.)
Query options is for setting Query Options (filter/sort what comes in). On the left side of the "equation" you need to select the field that is the identifier in the data source for the one side of one-to-many. On the right side, enter a value you know is in the data so that there's a match.
Table AutoFormat can be used to select a built-in (or user-defined) Table Style.
Insert Data - This is important: activate the checkbox Insert Data as field. This is what will dynamically link the data to the data source and provide a link to the merge information.
OK to insert the data / field.
Press Alt+F9 to view the underlying field codes.
Locate the query information (Select...) near the end of the field code. Change the right side of the Where clause to match the mergefield that provides the "one" side of one-to-many. For example: WHERE ((ID= 1)) would become WHERE ((ID= { Mergefield ID }))
If you don't want to see some of the fields (columns), such as an ID column (the "one" side of one-to-many), edit the list of fields at the beginning of the Select statement.
The result will look something like the following
Related
TblEmployees has Fname, Lname and EmployeeName fields. EmployeeName should be Fname + Lname (i.e. John Doe). I want to enter Fname and Lname in a form FrmEmployeeData, and update TblEmployees with Fname, Lname and EmployeeName.
If FrmEmployeeData has as Data Source TblEmployees, how do I get the concatenated [Fname]&" "&[Lname] into the EmployeeName field of the table?
I also tried changing the DataSource of FrmEmployeeData to a query QryConcatenateFname&Lname where EmployeeName:[Fname]&" "&[Lname]. This gave the correct "John Doe" in the query result but I could not get it to update the TblEmployees.
What am I doing wrong? Thx.
It looks like you are learning access as this question is really too simple for stack overflow. Instead consult an Access book at your library or start finding Youtube vidoes and tutorials on the internet. Having said that here is a start:
Access gives you the ability to add a calculated field to a table in the design tab by treating it as a DataType. You can also add lookups and some data validation. Never do any of that!! Use forms to enter and search the data, and use reports to print the data.
A simple yet quite incomplete explanation is that as your database expands into multiple related tables you will find that entering the data directly into the tables is error prone for the database designer yet alone the clients. Because any observation will be distributed across multiple tables it becomes easier and easier to forget one or make a mistake as you add more and more tables.
Access is designed for quickly making simple forms for the tables in your database. If your relationships are already entered using the Relationships tool Access even generates starter forms that handle 1 to many relationships. Just click on a table and under home then forms group on the ribbon choose either form or form wizard and start playing with your new forms properties:
if you don't see the properties (hit f4 in most cases). Seriously every control has properties you can play with. In particular look at the control sources and for the form itself (hit the top left corner to select the form) check out the default view property.
I happened to include EmployeeName as a string in tblEmployees but there was no need other than having access put the EmployeeName textbox on the form. I would have to go back and delete EmployeeName from the table which is about the same effort as adding the textbox to the form myself. Below I show how to set the control source for EmployeeName to the usual FullName calculation
=[Fname] & " " & [Lname]
Access forms by default have both data entry and search capabilities. Play with the record selector highlighted at the bottom of the beautified form below. You can edit any record you see and the changes will appear in the table. If you go past the last record you can add a new record.
I'm creating a compliance mailing for my organization, the mailing will include merge fields that identify the office location, physician, and SiteId. The mailing will also include a table of information that is dependent upon the particular SiteId.
I'd like to use the import table function of MS word and set up a query that references a merged field (SiteId) so that the inserted tables populate the appropriate data for the particular site. I'm unable to do this.
How can I set up this document so that I can import only records from my source (an ms access query) that match the SiteId merge field?
Word's mail merge does not support one-to-many relationships. There are ways to coerce it, but only one of them can yield a table as a result and over the years it has become less and less reliable as Microsoft has not regarded it as important enough to maintain...
What you need to do is set up a query that provides ONLY the information you want displayed in the table, plus the key (SiteId). It's best to sort it so that all the SiteId entries list together, and are in the order the data will come through in the mail merge data source.
On the Insert tab go to Text/Quick Parts/Insert Field and select the Database field from the list in the dialog box. Click "Insert Database" and follow the instructions in the dialog box to link in the data. Be sure to set the Query Options to filter on the first SiteId from the data source. When you "Insert Data" make sure to choose the option to "Insert as a field".
This inserts a DATABASE field in the document which you can see by toggling field codes (Alt+F9). The field code can be edited and what you need to do is substitute the literal SiteId value you entered for the query with its corresponding MergeField.
When you execute the merge to a new document that should generate a table for each data record corresponding to the SiteId for the record. But, as I said, Microsoft hasn't done a great job of maintaining this, so it may require quite a bit of tweaking and experimenting.
If the results are not satisfactory then you should give up the idea of mail merge and use automation code to generate and populate the documents.
You can find more (albeit somewhat out-dated) information on this topic at http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister/mergfaq1.htm
I have a Crystal Report with a database command:
The command has a join clause that can be removed and read from a table in the database, because it represents static data. I add this table (called _System) to the database expert:
Now I edit the command to remove the join and columns that reference this table. Since the report fields that depended on these columns are no longer mapped, this causes the Map Fields window to appear:
...which does not have the new table in it. If I cancel out of this I am back to where I originally was. If I hit OK without mapping, all of the unmapped fields on the report are deleted (suffice it to say... I was not expecting this >:( )
I have tried adding links between the command and the new table, and refreshing report parameters, but these have had no effect.
One workaround is to manually replace every field in the report, but this is very labour intensive.
Here is the outline of the command before:
SELECT ACT.Account_Code, ACT.Company, ACT.FName, --etc
STM.CompanyName AS 'DLRName', STM.Address_1 AS 'DLRAddress', STM.City AS 'DlrCity' --etc
FROM Accounts AS ACT
JOIN _System AS STM ON 1 = 1
GROUP BY ACT.Account_Code, ACT.Company, ACT.FName, --etc
STM.CompanyName, STM.Address_1, STM.City --etc
And after:
SELECT ACT.Account_Code, ACT.Company, ACT.FName, --etc
FROM Accounts AS ACT
GROUP BY ACT.Account_Code, ACT.Company, ACT.FName --etc
I have removed the JOIN on the _System table, and all referenced columns.
It appears to not be recognizing your _system table as a new source.
I would :
1) leave your command object SQL unchanged & get the issue worked out with the _System table, then
2) ensure that you are able to establish a join between the command object fields and the _System table fields, and lastly
3) then remap the fields.
Step two I suspect is the source of the problem, as your join condition is "ON 1 = 1" which I assume to mean that you may not have a common key field in both tables.
Note that your original command SQL selects STM.Companyname AS 'DLRName'.
Hence, crystal now know of a field called DLRName, but does not know of a field called CompanyName, hence it cannot make the association between DLRName in the old source, and CompanyName in the new source...
Likewise with the rest of the fields that are being moved from the command object to an attached table. if no name match exists...Crystal cant make the connection. However...it would list all unmatched fields that are on the report, and all unused fields in the recognized data sources, and allow you to specify the matches yourself.
But it does not...which tells me that something has gone wrong with the attempt to attach/open the _System table. Hence..you need to get that worked out first, then make the field adjustments.
If this doesnt get you thru...then show some sample data so I can see how the two tables are relating ( ensure some examples exists where there is a row match from both tables ).
I had the same problem a while ago.
Unfortunately I can't find anything online that helps, or maybe wasn't looking hard enough. I just noticed that in my case, that particular field that isn't showing in the map field dialogue box has nvarchar(max) as its datatype (in view).
I tried to force the datatype with CAST(missingfieldname as nvarchar(20)) as missingfieldname (I did this in the view), and voila, it magically appears in the map field dialogue box.
It seems that field mapping dialogue box aren't showing fields with blob texts.
I know this question was asked 4 years ago. But hopefully, this comment could help future solution seekers regarding this absurd and weird problem. I just got lucky seeing what's unique about that particular missing field.
As far as I can tell, the search filter in the navigator will only search available database names, not table names.
If you click on a table name and start typing, it appears that a simple search can be performed beginning with the first letter of the tables.
I'm looking for way to be able to search all table names in a selected database. Sometimes there can be a lot of tables to sort through. It seems like a feature that would likely be there and I can't find it.
Found out the answer...
If you type for example *.test_table or the schema name instead of the asterisk it will filter them. The key is that the schema/database must be specified in the search query. The asterisk notation works with the table names as well. For example *.*test* will filter any table in any schema with test anywhere in the table name.
You can use the command
SHOW TABLES like '%%';
To have it always in your tools, you can add it as a snippet to SQL aditions panel on the right.
Then you can always either bring it in your editor and type your search key between %%, or just execute it as it is (It will fetch all the tables of the database) and then just filter using the "filter rows" input of the result set.
I am trying to work around a limitation that Filemaker 12 seems to have. In a value list that links to an ODBC attached SQL Server database, it doesn't display every piece of data. If there are 2 people with the same last name for example, it only displays the first person with that last name in the list. This is verified by the following in the Filemaker documentation (which I found after a lot of digging)
If the value list is defined to display information from two fields, items will not be duplicated for the field on which the value list is sorted. For example, if the value list displays information from the Company field and the Name field, and if the values are sorted by the Company field, only one person from each company will appear in the value list.
Portals on the other hand will find all the related data, I just don't understand how do something with the data once I get it in the portal. I essentially thus wish to use a portal AS my drop-down value list, and then to use it as I would have a value list (which is then to act as the key to do the rest of the lookups on the page to fill out the invoice.
The major issue here (other than this maddening choice Filemaker seems to make) is that the external file I am pulling the data from is an ODBC mounted SQL Server file, so I can't do something easy like a calculated field which would give me last name & " " & first which would make almost every person unique. Filemaker won't let me do that because it says I can't do that with a field that is not indexed. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Assuming that we're starting with table MyTable and we're trying to get a ID from the People table for the selected person, which we'll call ID so that we can put it into MyTable::PersonID
Start by creating a new Table Occurrence of your People table and call it PeopleWhoCanBeSelected. If you want every person in the People table you can connect it to MyTable with the X relationship. If you want to show just a subset of the people you can build a different relationship.
Now, on a layout displaying records from MyTable you will make a portal showing records from the PeopleWhoCanBeSelected table.
In the portal put a button. When that button is pressed use the Set Field script step:
Set Field MyTable::PersonID to:
PeopleWhoCanBeSelected::ID
That should do it. You can make the button an invisible overlay on the entire portal record if you like, so that the user clicks on "the name" instead of "the button next to the name".
Now, if you want to pull additional data through to the MyTable record, you'll need to create a second Table Occurrence, called People with the relationship MyTable::PersonID = People::ID. Then you can get information on the specifically chosen person through that relationship.