REDEFINING FIELD TYPES

[JWJ]

I am working with a table consisting of 164 fields.&nbsp;&nbsp;The client improperly defined the fields (numeric) as double, single, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp;I have attempted to redfine them as currency as they are all dollar fields upon which arithmetic operations are performed.&nbsp;&nbsp;After having changed about half of them with no problem, I am suddenly getting an error &quot; Too many fields redefined!&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp;The help response states that I have tried to redefine more than 256 fields - which isn't the case.&nbsp;&nbsp;Anyone have any insight, suggestions, or possible work arounds?<br><br>Your prompt response would be appreciated.<br><br>Respectfully,<br><br>James W. Jozwiak<br>JWJ handle

 

[Amiel]

Just a thought JWJ...<br><br>&quot;...Too many fields redefined&quot;, well why not create a new table with the field data types that you require then add records to it from the 'broken' table.<br><br>Also, you may find it simpler to add those records to the new table using code rather than attempting to use a query or 'copying and pasting', as some data conversion may be necessary in this (one time) process.<br><br>Further assistance? Let me know. : )<br><br><br> <p>Amiel<br><a href=mailto:amielzz@netscape.net>amielzz@netscape.net</a><br><a href= > </a><br>

 

[MichaelRed]

JWJ,<br><br>I have seen this in flat file (un-normalized databases) on a few occasions.&nbsp;&nbsp;I am NOT certain, but it usually appeard to be that MS Access was counting not just the Fields in the table, but also any reference to those fields in queries (directly) dependent on the table.<br><br>In my experience, any database table (esp. MS Access?) that is 164 fields 'Wide' is in dire need of a double dose on normalization.&nbsp;&nbsp;As someone said to me several years ago &quot;... there <b>IS</b> a reason that Microsoft linited the number of fields in a table ...&quot;<br><br><br>MichaelRed<br>There is never time to do it right but there is always time to do it over