They look like bearing numbers to me. In addition to the good advice I think you've identified a need for at least one junction table (research the term if it's not familiar).
For example, while you would have a table for items (parts), you would not have a field in that table for every supplier name for parts. You would have a suppliers table with supplier info only, but relating these two entities requires a junction table tblPartSuppliers. It would look something like
tblSupplier |
SuplrID |
Supplier |
1 |
Acme |
2 |
Bearings R Us |
3 |
WeDooDat |
tblParts |
|
|
PartID |
PartNo |
Desc |
1 |
6001 |
|
2 |
6504 |
|
3 |
7895 |
|
4 |
9851 |
|
5 |
2569 |
|
tblPartSuppliers |
|
psID |
PartNo |
Supplier |
1 |
3 |
6 |
2 |
3 |
7 |
3 |
3 |
8 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
By linking these tables in a query, you'd know that supplier 1 (Acme) is one of the suppliers who provides part ID3 (7895). The related fields in the other 2 tables provide the supplier name (from tblSupplier) and the part info. While you can use text primary keys instead of the PK fields (the ID fields) you must ensure the value will be unique. Names do not usually make for good PK fields.
You have chosen quite a complex project for your first db and most of the pitfalls are probably on the Access side. M$ has made it relatively easy to create something; very easy to do it poorly. That often makes people strive hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear (as the saying goes). IHMO, you can't do too much preliminary research on this. Maybe post back with a pic of your relationships when you have something for consideration. I'd recommend doing it on paper and scanning it.
Last edited by Micron; 10-27-2018 at 04:50 PM.
Reason: clarification
The more we hear silence, the more we begin to think about our value in this universe.
Paraphrase of Professor Brian Cox.