Ffield Size Problem

[William Bradley]

I have a table with 95 fields. Today I went to increase the field size on
two of the fields from 20 to 50. When I try to save it I am told that I am
trying to save too many fields. The help tells me that I am over the 255.
However there are only the 95 fields I have quoted above.

Thank you for your help,

Bill.

[Scott McDaniel]

Not sure why (may have to do with indexes or some such), but the bigger
question is why 95 fields on one table? Not saying this is improper design,
but I can honestly say I've not seen one instance where it was necessary.

--
Scott McDaniel
CS Computer Software
Visual Basic - Access - Sql Server - ASP
"William Bradley" <br******@magma .ca> wrote in message
news:C-*************** *****@magma.ca. ..

I have a table with 95 fields. Today I went to increase the field size on
two of the fields from 20 to 50. When I try to save it I am told that I am
trying to save too many fields. The help tells me that I am over the 255.
However there are only the 95 fields I have quoted above.

Thank you for your help,

Bill.

[Rick Brandt]

"William Bradley" <br******@magma .ca> wrote in message
news:C-*************** *****@magma.ca. ..

I have a table with 95 fields. Today I went to increase the field size on
two of the fields from 20 to 50. When I try to save it I am told that I am trying to save too many fields. The help tells me that I am over the 255.
However there are only the 95 fields I have quoted above.

Two possibilities. The 255 field limit is over the lifetime of the table so
if you have deleted fields in the past they still count towards the limit.
There is also a limit on the total bytes allowed in a row and you might
have exceeded that.

Properly normalized tables rarely exceed even 50 fields. 95 fields
suggests that you are "committing spreadsheet", meaning that you are
storing your data as if you were using Excel instead of using a database.
If you post your table structure you will likely get some suggestions for a
different table design that not only solves your immediate problem, but
will make the data a lot easier to work with.
--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[William Bradley]

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@ho tmail.com> wrote in message
news:br******** ***@ID-98015.news.uni-berlin.de...

"William Bradley" <br******@magma .ca> wrote in message
news:C-*************** *****@magma.ca. ..
The table in question is a generic table to cover the manufacture of a
biological products that can take a number of forms, depending on what is
used in its manufacture. In any one product, a number of the fields are
unused. I would be happy to post the table structure but how is this done?
Simply make a list of the fields?

Thank you,

Bill.

I have a table with 95 fields. Today I went to increase the field size on two of the fields from 20 to 50. When I try to save it I am told that I

am

trying to save too many fields. The help tells me that I am over the 255. However there are only the 95 fields I have quoted above.

Two possibilities. The 255 field limit is over the lifetime of the table

so if you have deleted fields in the past they still count towards the limit.
There is also a limit on the total bytes allowed in a row and you might
have exceeded that.

Properly normalized tables rarely exceed even 50 fields. 95 fields
suggests that you are "committing spreadsheet", meaning that you are
storing your data as if you were using Excel instead of using a database.
If you post your table structure you will likely get some suggestions for a different table design that not only solves your immediate problem, but
will make the data a lot easier to work with.
--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Phil Stanton]

As a matter if interest, some time ago i designed a database for recipies
(well actually it was industrial flavourings) That had unlimited
combinations including using 1 flavouring as a subflavouring of another.
eg a salt and vineger flavouring might have had an ingredient of potasium
cyanide (not actually) and a flavouring of salt and a flavouring of vinegar.
In turn the salt flavouring had an ingredient of 100 parts Sodium Cloride, 1
patr potassium Cloride while the vinegar was made up of 100 parts malt
vinegar, 50 parts acetic acid. Non or this is true, but you get the drift

HTH

Phil
"William Bradley" <br******@magma .ca> wrote in message
news:1L******** ************@ma gma.ca...

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@ho tmail.com> wrote in message
news:br******** ***@ID-98015.news.uni-berlin.de...

"William Bradley" <br******@magma .ca> wrote in message
news:C-*************** *****@magma.ca. ..
The table in question is a generic table to cover the manufacture of a
biological products that can take a number of forms, depending on what is
used in its manufacture. In any one product, a number of the fields are
unused. I would be happy to post the table structure but how is this done?
Simply make a list of the fields?

Thank you,

Bill.

I have a table with 95 fields. Today I went to increase the field size on two of the fields from 20 to 50. When I try to save it I am told that

I

am

trying to save too many fields. The help tells me that I am over the 255. However there are only the 95 fields I have quoted above.

Two possibilities. The 255 field limit is over the lifetime of the table

so

if you have deleted fields in the past they still count towards the

limit. There is also a limit on the total bytes allowed in a row and you might
have exceeded that.

Properly normalized tables rarely exceed even 50 fields. 95 fields
suggests that you are "committing spreadsheet", meaning that you are
storing your data as if you were using Excel instead of using a database. If you post your table structure you will likely get some suggestions

for a

different table design that not only solves your immediate problem, but
will make the data a lot easier to work with.
--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Scott McDaniel]

It appears that you have all of your data in one large table, so, Yes just
post your field list along with a little bit of detail about what you are
trying to accomplish with this database (i.e. "I want to track all the
vehicle maintenance procedures performed on my car") ... go into as much
detail as you wish, but remember that we probably know little about your
particular field.
--
Scott McDaniel
CS Computer Software
Visual Basic - Access - Sql Server - ASP
"William Bradley" <br******@magma .ca> wrote in message
news:1L******** ************@ma gma.ca...

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@ho tmail.com> wrote in message
news:br******** ***@ID-98015.news.uni-berlin.de...

"William Bradley" <br******@magma .ca> wrote in message
news:C-*************** *****@magma.ca. ..
The table in question is a generic table to cover the manufacture of a
biological products that can take a number of forms, depending on what is
used in its manufacture. In any one product, a number of the fields are
unused. I would be happy to post the table structure but how is this done?
Simply make a list of the fields?

Thank you,

Bill.

I have a table with 95 fields. Today I went to increase the field size on two of the fields from 20 to 50. When I try to save it I am told that

I

am

trying to save too many fields. The help tells me that I am over the 255. However there are only the 95 fields I have quoted above.

Two possibilities. The 255 field limit is over the lifetime of the table

so

if you have deleted fields in the past they still count towards the

limit. There is also a limit on the total bytes allowed in a row and you might
have exceeded that.

Properly normalized tables rarely exceed even 50 fields. 95 fields
suggests that you are "committing spreadsheet", meaning that you are
storing your data as if you were using Excel instead of using a database. If you post your table structure you will likely get some suggestions

for a

different table design that not only solves your immediate problem, but
will make the data a lot easier to work with.
--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[William Bradley]

Rick Brandt wrote:

"William Bradley" <br******@magma .ca> wrote in message Two possibilities. The 255 field limit is over the lifetime of the table
so if you have deleted fields in the past they still count towards the
limit. There is also a limit on the total bytes allowed in a row and you
might have exceeded that.

That is probably the problem as the table is old and has gone through a
number of renovations and changes. Is there a way to "clean" the table of
these old deleted fields.

Thanks,

Bill.

[Tony Toews]

William Bradley <br******@magma .ca> wrote:

Two possibilities. The 255 field limit is over the lifetime of the table
so if you have deleted fields in the past they still count towards the
limit. There is also a limit on the total bytes allowed in a row and you
might have exceeded that.

That is probably the problem as the table is old and has gone through a
number of renovations and changes. Is there a way to "clean" the table of
these old deleted fields.

Compact.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

[Tony Toews]

An************* ***@See.Comment .Header wrote:

Forgery

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm