Number of fields in a form

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

What is the maximum (limit) for number of fields you can define for a form?

Greathings from Gustaf
 
I think Help is misleading here. It says the maximum over the life of the
form is 754. What is does not say is that if you delete a control, it does
not reduce the count.
In reality, it would be insane to have that many controls on one form.
 
Sorry i'm not that lucky!
and
754 seems to be some kind of a dream number.
I would be happy if it would be possible to define 270 fields, but the real
limit seems to be 255. That's the background to my question!
When i am trying to define the field no 256 in the datasource for my form
the result is that all fields disappear and i get the message that to many
fields are defined.
I have been told that the program "remembers" old fields even after they
have been removed and thats why i'm started from scratch with a new form and
copied all controlls etc to the new form. The result was still not possible
to define more than 255 fields.
I am using Office 2003.
It would be nice to get some real explanation from someone who knows
/Gustaf
 
Gustaf1869 said:
Sorry i'm not that lucky!
and
754 seems to be some kind of a dream number.
I would be happy if it would be possible to define 270 fields, but
the real limit seems to be 255. That's the background to my question!
When i am trying to define the field no 256 in the datasource for my
form the result is that all fields disappear and i get the message
that to many fields are defined.
I have been told that the program "remembers" old fields even after
they have been removed and thats why i'm started from scratch with a
new form and copied all controlls etc to the new form. The result was
still not possible to define more than 255 fields.
I am using Office 2003.
It would be nice to get some real explanation from someone who knows
Click to expand...

Completely aside from the form's limit on the number of controls,
there's a hard limit of 255 fields in a table.
 
Hello Dirk!
Thank you for your answer, but it looks like there must be some other limit
than the limit of 255 fields in a table(wich I did not know about).
In my form I am using fields from 3 different tables no one bigger than 154
fields.
-table 1 has 103 fields
-table 2 has 154 fields
-table 3 has 44 fields
I am of course not using all fields from all the three tables and the fields
I am using are not all beeing visible at the same time.
My question from the beginning has NOT been "how many controls" I can use in
a form but how many fields I can define in a form (the datasource). I think
there have been some missunderstanding about that.
When I tryed to add field no 256 in the datasource the fieldlist shown in
forms designmode became empty(all fields was still defined in the datasource
but Access did not recognize any one of them).
Sorry about my limited langugeknowledge in English. Hope it is possible to
understand my Accessproblem anyway.
Thank you again for your answer.
Greethings from Gustaf


"Dirk Goldgar" skrev:
 
I think I have found the answer to my problem. There is also a limit of 255
fields in a question and in my datasource in my form i am using a Select
where I am trying to pass the limit of 255.
So now I have to find some solution for that problem.
/Gustaf

"Gustaf1869" skrev:
 
Gustaf1869 said:
Hello Dirk!
Thank you for your answer, but it looks like there must be some other
limit than the limit of 255 fields in a table(wich I did not know
about).
In my form I am using fields from 3 different tables no one bigger
than 154 fields.
-table 1 has 103 fields
-table 2 has 154 fields
-table 3 has 44 fields
I am of course not using all fields from all the three tables and the
fields I am using are not all beeing visible at the same time.
Click to expand...

That won't work, because you are also restricted to no more than 255
fields in a query. The limit of 255 fields is rarely reached, however,
in a properly normalized database.
My question from the beginning has NOT been "how many controls" I can
use in a form but how many fields I can define in a form (the
datasource).
I think there have been some missunderstanding about
that.
Click to expand...

Yes. It's a matter of terminology. Technically, a form doesn't have
"fields", it has controls, so when people talk about "fields on a form",
we generally assume they mean "controls". A form's recordsource, being
a table or query, has fields, but they aren't thought of as being
"defined in the form". Anyway, we understand you now.
When I tryed to add field no 256 in the datasource the fieldlist
shown in forms designmode became empty(all fields was still defined
in the datasource but Access did not recognize any one of them).
Sorry about my limited langugeknowledge in English. Hope it is
possible to understand my Accessproblem anyway.
Click to expand...

Your English is excellent. There may be a problem with your design,
however. Properly structured tables with 100+ fields are extremely
rare. Even 44 is a very large number of fields for a table. I don't
want to jump to conclusions, but do your tables' field lists contain
repeating groups with names like "Item1", "Item2", "Item3", etc. That
would be a sign of data that really should be moved into a multiple
records in a separate, related table. If you'd like to post the design
of your tables, we might be able to see whether they ought to be
restructured.
 
Gustaf1869 said:
I think I have found the answer to my problem. There is also a limit
of 255 fields in a question and in my datasource in my form i am
using a Select where I am trying to pass the limit of 255.
So now I have to find some solution for that problem.
Click to expand...

See my response to your previous message. In the unlikely event that
you really have to have all these fields showing on one form, you can
probably use subforms to do it. Most likely restructuring your data
will eliminate the technical problem, and then you'd use subforms to
display the related data anyway.
 
Thank you again for your answer.
I will restructure my data (split the tables). I am sure that is the best
solution in the long run.
Many thanks from Gustaf


"Dirk Goldgar" skrev:
 
Back
Top