Too many fields defined

[Guest]

I have about 200 fields in the design view of my table. I want to add some
new fields for 2006. Every time I try to add a new field an error message
pops up: "Too many fields defined (Error 3190)" but I know that I should be
able to add more fields. Strangely enough this same problem occurred in
early January of 2005 leaving me completely stumped for about 3 months when
for some unknown reason I was suddenly able to add more fields. I have tired
closing the database, selecting "Compact and Repair from the Tools-Databse
Utilities menu option. This has not helped. Any other suggestions?

 

[Al Camp]

I want to add some new fields for 2006
If your table requires that you add fields for every year, then your
table design needs to be rethought. (normalized)
Please provide more detail as to what your trying to accomplish, and why
it's necessary to add more fields each year.

 

[Van T. Dinh]

Yep. Definitely problems with normalization.

See the Microsoft Knowledge Base article:

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=209534

 

[John Vinson]

I have about 200 fields in the design view of my table.

Then you probably have an incorrectly normalized database.

I want to add some new fields for 2006.

Then you CERTAINLY have an incorrectly normalized database.

Every time I try to add a new field an error message
pops up: "Too many fields defined (Error 3190)" but I know that I should be
able to add more fields. Strangely enough this same problem occurred in
early January of 2005 leaving me completely stumped for about 3 months when
for some unknown reason I was suddenly able to add more fields. I have tired
closing the database, selecting "Compact and Repair from the Tools-Databse
Utilities menu option. This has not helped. Any other suggestions?

Normalize your database. You're clearly storing data IN FIELDNAMES -
if you have fields for 2005 and 2006. This is good for spreadsheets,
but Access is not a spreadsheet!

Dates *are data*. Data should be stored *in fields*, not in
fieldnames. It would appear that each of these horredously wide
records (a 30-field table is *very* wide) contains multiple logical
records, which should be stored *as multiple records*, in a one to
many relationship.

You're using a relational database. Use it relationally!

John W. Vinson[MVP]