Limited number of updateable fields in update query??

[Matthew Wells]

Hello,

I am executing an SQL string in an ADO connection to an Access mdb that
updates 10 fields in one row:

SQL = Update table1 set fld1 = value1, fld2 = value2,...fld10 = value10
Where <criteris>
connADO.Execute SQL, iRecsAffected

When i execute the code it doesn't update any records. I pasted the text in
the qbe and it still didn't update any rows - no errors, just 0 rows
updated.

After experimenting I found that the statement will update 1 row if I only
have 9 fields to update. It didn't matter which field I omitted, as long as
there was only 9 or less. This seems to be consistent between my ADO
connection and using DAO in the qbe.

Has anyone else heard of this limitation?

[Matthew Wells]

I found the answer, but it makes no sense. My criteria for the record is a
3 field compound key - one of which is a date field. In my SQL string, I
didn't put #s around the date. No problem. But why did it work when I
removed a simple text or integer field - leaving the same criteria?

"Matthew Wells" <MW****@FirstByte.net> wrote in message
news:B8*****************@newsread1.news.atl.earthl ink.net...

Hello,

I am executing an SQL string in an ADO connection to an Access mdb that
updates 10 fields in one row:

SQL = Update table1 set fld1 = value1, fld2 = value2,...fld10 = value10
Where <criteris>
connADO.Execute SQL, iRecsAffected

When i execute the code it doesn't update any records. I pasted the text in the qbe and it still didn't update any rows - no errors, just 0 rows
updated.

After experimenting I found that the statement will update 1 row if I only
have 9 fields to update. It didn't matter which field I omitted, as long as there was only 9 or less. This seems to be consistent between my ADO
connection and using DAO in the qbe.

Has anyone else heard of this limitation?