Dan Waters
dwaters at usinternet.com
Fri Jul 23 13:55:10 CDT 2004
I guess I had thought of using an unbound form as well. But I think at this point, with more fields perhaps to come as the customer starts using this, it would make more sense to rewrite this as an ADP rather than rewrite it to be unbound. However, this many fields is a function of the process and nothing else. There is no logical normalization that can be done that hasn't already been done (there are two different child tables). To remove fields is to change the business process. Thanks Charlotte! Dan -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Charlotte Foust Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 1:26 PM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: RE: [AccessD] Need more than 255 fields! (was - Hit the Wall?) Even for a process management project, I think 270 fields in a single table is a BAD idea. The way I got around this kind of problem in a survey app was to use an unbound form with fully relational tables and code to populate the controls and to write each change to the correct record. Charlotte Foust -----Original Message----- From: Dan Waters [mailto:dwaters at usinternet.com] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 10:23 AM To: Database Advisors Subject: FW: [AccessD] Need more than 255 fields! (was - Hit the Wall?) Any other ideas on ways to resolve this issue? Thanks! Dan Waters -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Dan Waters Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 8:45 PM To: Database Advisors Subject: [AccessD] Hit the Wall? In an Access app w/FE and BE, I need a table that has about 270 fields. A single form will be bound to the table. (This is a business process management application.) If I upsize this to a project (never done this), I can have up to 1024 fields in a table. I tried creating a query to join two smaller tables, but queries are also limited to 255 columns. Is there a way around this so I can still use an Access BE? Thanks! Dan Waters -- _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com -- _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com -- _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com