too many fields
dbah...@hotmail.com
im going through and tinkering between LONG INT and DOUBLE for about
100 differtent fields
next thing i know; i go to save my chances and MDB throws 'too many
fields defined'
i mean JESUS
so.. uh.. i dont have anywhere near 255 columns
but i probably have 50 long ints and 50 doubles
why would i be getting 'too many fields defined' error if im nowhere
near the limit?
John Vinson
<dbah...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Every time you CHANGE a field definition it "uses up" one of the 255
slots. You can recover them by Compacting the database.
I do have to question the design of any table with 100 number fields.
It certainly sounds like you're storing "repeating" data - what are
some typical fieldnames here? Might this not be better normalized into
a tall-thin table with fifty RECORDS, each with one Long and one
Double plus a foreign key, rather than 100 FIELDS?
John W. Vinson[MVP]
dbah...@hotmail.com
not like the text files are gonna change
i might normalize them some but most likely i wont change a thing just
shape it with an ugly union and then olap the shit out of it
-aaron
TC
you've said: "mdb is crap don't use obsolete databases", and: "mdb is
fucking crap use access data projects".
You're obviously an Access beginner - your question in this thread,
shows that. So shouldn't you learn how to use it, first, before you
slag off at it?
Surprisingly, there's another "aaron" around, who has the same problem!
TC
Joseph Meehan
<dbah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136354790....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
You will be sorry. ....
Normalizing rules!
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
dbah...@hotmail.com
is atrocious
that limit is why i first started doing SQL Server back 7 years ago
you're the newbie kid
im going to be certified in 2005 soon
dbah...@hotmail.com
to troubleshoot access cryptic-ass messages
i mean-- if access had real debugging information; it wouldn't be such
a piece of crap database BACKEND
MDB works allright for _SOME_ frontend shit but it shouldn't ever be
relied on to house data i mean JESUS
dbah...@hotmail.com
im doing olap go screw yourself; can you even spell olap??
and no normalizing doesn't rule-- the data comes in one shape and it
stays in one shape.. what am i going to do; copy data around all day
lol?
views and olap make your concepts of 'normalization' obsolete
Joseph Meehan
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit
<dbah...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136394572....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
dbah...@hotmail.com
access mdb is so cryptic; i love access more than anything-- if i didnt
i wouldn't be here
but MDB is overused and i just wish that MS would take the CURRENT
version of access more seriously; instead of trying to shove a new
version down our throats.
is it intuitive about having to compact and repair in between changing
column defs?
i just think that it's funny that i get ripped for 'not knowing how to
do things' when i think that it's obviously the fault of access
debugging information
i mean-- when TSQL chokes; you can paste the TSQL in query analyzer and
it gives you real debugging information
when mdb chokes; it just throws up a 'too many fields' message
when it really has nothing to do with too many fields
im sorry im an asshole on these newsgroups
it's just frustrating sometimes to deal with you guys sometimes.. i
mean-- you all sit around and pick on ADP people; and then when i pick
on MDB people back you all just attack me
i mean-- maybe what im trying to say is 'dont attack people for using
adp'
i mean-- every time some newbie comes around you guys are like
'whatever you do don't use adp'
i believe that is an incredibly short-sighted reccomendation.
sql server is just blatantly more powerful than mdb.
100 times more powerful in every direction.
TC
dbah...@hotmail.com wrote:
> im sorry im an asshole on these newsgroups
>
> it's just frustrating sometimes to deal with you guys sometimes.. i
> mean-- you all sit around and pick on ADP people; and then when i pick
> on MDB people back you all just attack me
Aaron, you'd get a lot more milage if you considered doing two things.
(a) Moderate your language. We should all try & stick to language that
we'd be happy to use to our workmates. You'd have to admit, your
language sometimes falls well & truly outside that boundary.
(b) Stop trying to slag-off Access & MDBs. You say that /we/ pick on
ADP people, but that just isn't true, from what I can see. Personally,
I know nothing about ADPs, so I do not ever comment on them. But you -
who are clearly /not/ an expert on MDBs - consistently slag off at
MDBs. I think you see this situation, in the opposite way from which it
actually occurs.
Why don't we two make a pact? You moderate your language & stop
slagging-off at MDBs, and I'll stop getting into you in the way I've
been doing. Then we'll both be happier, no?
TC
TC
this thread, today, before I made the one above. The two in question
are gone from google, but I guess they might show up on other servers
if they got distributed in the 5 or 10 minutes before I deleted them
from google.
TC
dbah...@hotmail.com
at microsoft
i mean-- i wont call anyone else bad names but those idiots that put
out products that are impossible to use and secure
when they fix the bug 'create proc sphappy' is when i'll look someone
from microsoft in the face without spitting.
i mean.. SQL Authenticaion can't hold up to a simple dictionary attack
and being polite about it hasn't gotten anything done.
being polite about it-- when Bill Gates is putting soldiers at risk?
not in my lifetime.
when they build a time machine and not fire me for speaking the truth..
when they feed me when i was hungry last may; after getting fired from
MS the day that my car got stolen? i was pissy from my car being
stolen (it was the worst car on the lot i swear to god) and i got fired
when they buy me a pitcher on the day i got fired last may; that is
when i'll surrender to MS.
TC
everyone :-)
Cheers,
TC