Updating a table with over 100 fields

[zMisc]

I've a table with over 100 fields and when I update a record in ADO.NET (on
a web form), it crashed out with expression is too complex.

But it works for adding a new record. It also works with ADO in VB6. This is
definitely a bug (since .NET 1.0) if it works for add but not update.

I know some responses will be to split the table - but just assume that it
cannot be normalise.

Any help greatly appreciated.

TIA
Young

 

[Mark Rae]

I've a table with over 100 fields and when I update a record in ADO.NET
(on a web form), it crashed out with expression is too complex.

Sounds like you're building up dynamic SQL. If so, create a parameterised
stored procedure instead, and pass the values in through a Parameters
collection.

 

[Cor Ligthert [MVP]]

Young,

But it works for adding a new record. It also works with ADO in VB6. This
is definitely a bug (since .NET 1.0) if it works for add but not update.

Are you really thinking that you are the only one who is updating in the
world using VSNet.

Cor

 

[Scott Allen]

Can you post the code that demonstrates the problem?

 

[pmclinn]

I had the same issue, and decided to refine my record structures. I
tend to save 100 textfield forms into one single field with a lookup
key, and possibly some summary fields . [In Oracle I use the clob data
type.]. This type of system works great and is amazingly efficient. I
wrote a system that stores contractor invoives for my company that
stores thousands of records a month with this system and it has been
amazingly responsive. In some cases I additionally add in summary
columns that allow me to quickly calculate numbers for various reports
that would otherwise have to dig into these larger rows of data.

The down fall is that it takes programmed systems to get at the details
within these compressed fields....

-Peter