>I have a some fields that are not always used in my database. They a sequential in nature. I would like to take them off the main form so that I can have a scrolling window on top of the main form. Then I can just scroll to the field I want to enter instead of scrolling down the whole form. That way I can just scroll to the field I want without changing the position of the form. There is 100 fields that I would like to do this with, the default box only lets you have 20 fields.
> If you have over 100 fields in your table... your table design is
> almost certainly WRONG.
Thank you for pointing that our John, I am sure there are many things wrong
with my design but it works for now and that is what is important at this
point.
> I've needed as many as 60 fields in a table... once, about twelve
> years ago, in Oracle. I've never *needed* more than 30 in Access.
OK.
> Take a look at the normalization of your table. Is it not possible
> that you have some one-to-many relationships embedded in each record?
I suppose, but I don't know what that means. What I am doing is keeping
track of individual purchases, employee time, customer, work done, dates
work is done, hours, machines work is done on, figuring some of this into
formula's that tell me certain things about all of this and relating all of
that to a job # assigned to the work. It is rather complicated to begin
with and all of the information needs to be on one screen for different
employees to assess and address. Soooo..., I want to put already existing
fields onto a window that can be scrolled though.
That would be nice, instead of being told of how incompetent I am with
Access. I already know my ignorance that is why I came here. But thanks
for your reply.
Ted
John Vinson - 31 Dec 2005 06:04 GMT
>> If you have over 100 fields in your table... your table design is
>> almost certainly WRONG.
>
>Thank you for pointing that our John, I am sure there are many things wrong
>with my design but it works for now and that is what is important at this
>point.
My apologies, Ted. I was far to strident in that post.
I've never *seen* an Entity with over 100 distinct,
non-interdependent, atomic attributes. That doesn't mean that there
aren't any such, or that your table design is incorrect (just
unusual).
Again... I'm sorry. I'll go back to the original thread and see if I
can make a more positive contribution.
John W. Vinson[MVP]