Re: Too Many Fields Defined
- From: "Jeff Boyce" <JeffBoyce_IF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:00:06 -0700
If you and your associate will spend a bit of time in the tablesdbdesign
newsgroup, you'll find a strong consensus about the "proper" number of
fields in a table. "Proper" is too strong a term, but now that I have your
attention...<g>
Access is a relational database. It is rare to need more than 30 fields in
any one table in a well-normalized relational database. Your description of
multiple columns and a "massive" database suggest that you are working with
a design that would be appropriate ... for a spreadsheet!
If you'll provide a bit more description, the newsgroup readers will be able
to offer a bit more specific suggestions.
--
Regards
Jeff Boyce
Microsoft Office/Access MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Microsoft IT Academy Program Mentor
http://microsoftitacademy.com/
Microsoft Registered Partner
https://partner.microsoft.com/
"Novice2000" <Novice2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:EAC3B25F-59D1-4A26-9201-AD8EFC1C2C8B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
One of my associates is trying to add columns in this massive database andindicated
gets this message. Is there a limit to the number of fields? SHe
that she had removed many columns to make room for the new ones.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: translation functions
- Next by Date: Re: Too Many Fields Defined
- Previous by thread: Re: Change fiscal period (how)?
- Next by thread: Re: Too Many Fields Defined
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
