Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Access 2007 needs to allow > 255 variables

Discussion in 'Information Technology' started by David Billigmeier, Jul 28, 2006.

  1. David Billigmeier

    David Billigmeier
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Excel 2007 increased to 16,384 columns, why does Access 2007 still have the
    255 variable limit? This should be increased as well.

    --
    Regards,
    Dave

    ----------------
    This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
    suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
    Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
    link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
    click "I Agree" in the message pane.

    http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...-a777-41b5fd7982f9&dg=microsoft.public.access
     
  2. Loading...


  3. '69 Camaro

    '69 Camaro
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi, Dave.

    > why does Access 2007 still have the
    > 255 variable limit?


    By "variable," I assume you mean columns, or fields, in a table. If you
    have more than 50 columns in your table, then you probably need to redesign
    your table so that it is normalized. (Generally, 30 columns or more is a
    lot.) If you think that you or anyone else will _ever_ have a need to
    design a table in a relational database that exceeds the 255 column limit,
    then you need to study how to normalize spreadsheets for data storage in
    relational databases.

    HTH.
    Gunny

    See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    info.


    "David Billigmeier" <dtbill21@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:97A96395-77D0-451E-A777-41B5FD7982F9@microsoft.com...
    > Excel 2007 increased to 16,384 columns, why does Access 2007 still have
    > the
    > 255 variable limit? This should be increased as well.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    > Dave
    >
    > ----------------
    > This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
    > suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
    > Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
    > this
    > link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
    > click "I Agree" in the message pane.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...-a777-41b5fd7982f9&dg=microsoft.public.access
     
  4. dbahooker@hotmail.com

    dbahooker@hotmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Gunny;

    I disagree.

    I have had some wildly successful apps that legitimately have more than
    200 columns.

    legitimate; normalized tables.

    you don't NEED to do anything other than

    a) ditch MDB it's a piece of shit database
    b) use sql server it doesn't have this limit.

    the ONLY reason i moved to ADP 7 years ago-- was to get around this 255
    column limit (and performance was much better in ADP)
     
  5. BruceM

    BruceM
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Why hang around in this newsgroup, then, if you have such contempt for
    Access?

    <dbahooker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1148583303.279821.224180@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Gunny;
    >
    > I disagree.
    >
    > I have had some wildly successful apps that legitimately have more than
    > 200 columns.
    >
    > legitimate; normalized tables.
    >
    > you don't NEED to do anything other than
    >
    > a) ditch MDB it's a piece of shit database
    > b) use sql server it doesn't have this limit.
    >
    > the ONLY reason i moved to ADP 7 years ago-- was to get around this 255
    > column limit (and performance was much better in ADP)
    >
     
  6. David Billigmeier

    David Billigmeier
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Gunny -
    Yes, by Variables I mean Columns (Fields). Normalization is NOT an option
    for what I need it for. I don't have a relational database, I have .csv
    files with sometimes 800 or more fields. I need a tool for which I can
    quickly look at these fields.

    I don't just think myself or anyone else will _ever_ have a need to design a
    table that exceeds the 255 column limit, I KNOW. This limitation comes up
    quite often in my line of work.

    --
    Regards,
    Dave


    "'69 Camaro" wrote:

    > Hi, Dave.
    >
    > > why does Access 2007 still have the
    > > 255 variable limit?

    >
    > By "variable," I assume you mean columns, or fields, in a table. If you
    > have more than 50 columns in your table, then you probably need to redesign
    > your table so that it is normalized. (Generally, 30 columns or more is a
    > lot.) If you think that you or anyone else will _ever_ have a need to
    > design a table in a relational database that exceeds the 255 column limit,
    > then you need to study how to normalize spreadsheets for data storage in
    > relational databases.
    >
    > HTH.
    > Gunny
    >
    > See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    > See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    > http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    > info.
    >
    >
    > "David Billigmeier" <dtbill21@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:97A96395-77D0-451E-A777-41B5FD7982F9@microsoft.com...
    > > Excel 2007 increased to 16,384 columns, why does Access 2007 still have
    > > the
    > > 255 variable limit? This should be increased as well.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Regards,
    > > Dave
    > >
    > > ----------------
    > > This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
    > > suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
    > > Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
    > > this
    > > link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
    > > click "I Agree" in the message pane.
    > >
    > > http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...-a777-41b5fd7982f9&dg=microsoft.public.access

    >
    >
    >
     
  7. '69 Camaro

    '69 Camaro
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi, Dave.

    > I don't have a relational database, I have .csv
    > files with sometimes 800 or more fields. I need a tool for which I can
    > quickly look at these fields.


    It's a matter of using the right tool for the job. You have a spreadsheet.
    Use spreadsheet software, not a database application, to "quickly look" at
    these fields. If you need to eventually manipulate the data using SQL
    queries (which is an extremely powerful tool for evaluating data sets), then
    you _must_ normalize the data and store the data in a relational database,
    such as Access, SQL Server, or Oracle, not in an unnormalized spreadsheet or
    table.

    Not normalizing this data prior to using SQL to query the data is _not_ an
    option, because if you try to use SQL on unnormalized spreadsheets, then you
    run the risk of data anomolies and data integrity failures, or at the very
    least, convoluted queries that are very difficult to read and maintain, and
    may take a very long time to run. You really, really don't want to explain
    to your boss that the reason he just spent millions of dollars on a project
    when your report showed it would cost only a few hundreds of thousands of
    dollars is because the report only grabbed a few records that met the
    criteria, not _all_ the records that met the criteria, because much of same
    type of data was stored in differently named fields.

    > This limitation comes up
    > quite often in my line of work.


    Then you are using the wrong tools for your work if you expect a relational
    database to have the same capabilities as a spreadsheet application.
    Wouldn't you say the same thing to a carpenter who complained that his
    hammer couldn't turn a screw or tighten a nut on a bolt?

    HTH.
    Gunny

    See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    info.


    "David Billigmeier" <dtbill21@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:77B7599A-2BC7-4017-84C5-6FA99F5E604A@microsoft.com...
    > Gunny -
    > Yes, by Variables I mean Columns (Fields). Normalization is NOT an option
    > for what I need it for. I don't have a relational database, I have .csv
    > files with sometimes 800 or more fields. I need a tool for which I can
    > quickly look at these fields.
    >
    > I don't just think myself or anyone else will _ever_ have a need to design
    > a
    > table that exceeds the 255 column limit, I KNOW. This limitation comes up
    > quite often in my line of work.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    > Dave
    >
    >
    > "'69 Camaro" wrote:
    >
    >> Hi, Dave.
    >>
    >> > why does Access 2007 still have the
    >> > 255 variable limit?

    >>
    >> By "variable," I assume you mean columns, or fields, in a table. If you
    >> have more than 50 columns in your table, then you probably need to
    >> redesign
    >> your table so that it is normalized. (Generally, 30 columns or more is a
    >> lot.) If you think that you or anyone else will _ever_ have a need to
    >> design a table in a relational database that exceeds the 255 column
    >> limit,
    >> then you need to study how to normalize spreadsheets for data storage in
    >> relational databases.
    >>
    >> HTH.
    >> Gunny
    >>
    >> See http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
    >> See http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
    >> http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
    >> info.
    >>
    >>
    >> "David Billigmeier" <dtbill21@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:97A96395-77D0-451E-A777-41B5FD7982F9@microsoft.com...
    >> > Excel 2007 increased to 16,384 columns, why does Access 2007 still have
    >> > the
    >> > 255 variable limit? This should be increased as well.
    >> >
    >> > --
    >> > Regards,
    >> > Dave
    >> >
    >> > ----------------
    >> > This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
    >> > suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the
    >> > "I
    >> > Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
    >> > this
    >> > link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and
    >> > then
    >> > click "I Agree" in the message pane.
    >> >
    >> > http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...-a777-41b5fd7982f9&dg=microsoft.public.access

    >>
    >>
    >>
     
  8. dbahooker@hotmail.com

    dbahooker@hotmail.com
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    sql server buddy-- import them all into a sql server table using bulk
    insert statements


    i've been asking ms for something like this for a long time

    Select * {LIKE 'fld%'}
    from mytable

    in order to give you all the columns in a table that start with fld.

    or

    Select * {LIKE 'curr%' ABC}
    from myTable

    to give you every column in a table that starts with CURR and then it
    will put the **FIELDS** in alphabetical order.


    i believe that this premise-- that we shouldn't ever need tables that
    are 400 columns wide so we're not going to give you the toolset that
    you need--

    is a bunch of hogwash.

    microsoft needs to stop listening to db theorists and start listening
    to people with real-world needs.

    you can take your theory and shove it guys; Microsoft is a bunch of
    babies for not allowing super-wide tables.
     
  9. BruceM

    BruceM
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I notice you don't have any suggestions, just name-calling. The suggestion
    was that Excel may be a better tool for the job. If somebody said they
    wanted to use Access as a word processor I expect that just about anybody
    would encourage that person to use Word (or another word processor program).
    Yet when the discussion is about a choice between Excel and Access there
    often seems to be an assumption (perhaps because a table resembles a
    spreadsheet in appearance) that the two should be interchangeable.
    Access cannot handle an 800 field table. The problem cannot be fixed with
    Access, any more than Access can be used effectively as a word processor.
    Actually, that would probably be easier, but it is not practical.
    You cannot offer a suggestion of your own. You cannot point to a program
    with the features to solve this particular problem. If the best you can do
    is to slam Microsoft and those of us who use it, you have less to offer than
    anybody.

    <dbahooker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1148656218.569344.301530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > gunny
    >
    > normalizing is an option.
    >
    > think outside of the box asshole.
    >
    > you dont understand this guy has a csv file that is 800 columns wide.
    >
    > anything other than 'yes sir here is how you fix it' is a big waste of
    > time.
    >
    > he's not going to get a different csv file.
    >
    > you guys-- and microsoft-- need to start thinking outside of the box.
    >
     
  10. BruceM

    BruceM
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    As was clearly stated, the problem is fixed by using the right tool for the
    job. Does Excel need to be fixed because you can't create relationships
    between worksheets? A surprising number of people think Access is deficient
    for not being spreadsheet, but do not see Excel as deficient for not being a
    relational database.
    By the way, what is your suggestion? All you have done is rail against
    Microsoft. By your own definition, your posting is a waste of time.

    <dbahooker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1148656218.569344.301530@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > gunny
    >
    > normalizing is an option.
    >
    > think outside of the box asshole.
    >
    > you dont understand this guy has a csv file that is 800 columns wide.
    >
    > anything other than 'yes sir here is how you fix it' is a big waste of
    > time.
    >
    > he's not going to get a different csv file.
    >
    > you guys-- and microsoft-- need to start thinking outside of the box.
    >
     

Share This Page