hey I use FM9 but I can't calculate the number...

why always like 1,10,11,12,....100,101,.....1000,1001

why can't consecutive number like 1,2,3,4,5,6,........99999?....

I don't understand what you are attempting to calculate. If you are trying to get an incrementing serial number, set the field to type number and, under auto-enter in your field definitions (File > Manage > Database > Fields), select Serial and Next Value 1, increment by 1. If this isn't what you need then please explain a bit more. :wink2:

Edited January 28, 201016 yr by Guest
Added sentence

how to make the number consecutively .

this my example why the number not consecutively?...

i want the number consecutively.

yes I done with the auto number but it's not consecutively

It looks like two things have happened: 1) a lot of time has passed and records have been deleted in between and/or 2) an import took place, importing the serials as well (without specifying 'Perform auto-enter'.

I would only caution ... are there any related records which are related using these serial numbers? If not, then you can re-serialize by (and BACK UP FIRST):

Show All Records

Place cursor in that ID field

Run Records > Replace Field Contents

Select 'Replace with serial numbers'

Initial value 1

Increment by 1

... and then check that checkbox which says 'Update serial number in entry options.'

Then click REPLACE

This should be done when others aren't in the system so you won't hit record locking issues.

how to make the number consecutively

This is scaresly descriped, what purpose would you need the relative position in the file for? Would you need in case of gaps/deletion of records, that the numbers adjusts themselves?

Even better what would need such thing? Scripted replaces as LaRetta suggests would do something in the vicinity of that, but then would you need to get the autoentering adjusted as well, which rules out scripting of the matter ... could it be that you somehow have caught a cul de sac, on assumptions of being a proper requirement - which instead actually is structural issue?

Perhaps even a layout matter only read up upon the use of @@...

--sd

This situation happened to me once. I had to add id # for each record. Simply start with 00001, 00002, etc... The problem occurs when you sort number. Computers think differently!!