=?Utf-8?B?RGVubmlz?= wrote in
:

Hmmm, I see your point and kind of agree with it. My back ground
in on large and midrnage computers where it is nothing to have a
200 field, 30K record.

However, I realize that Access is a different beast and I'm having
to learn to adjust for it restrictions. Thanks for the insight.
Just more to think about. But then I learn something new also.

Schema design should be as independent of the database engine as
possible, so Access is *not* different in any way, shape or form. I
would recommend *as a starting point* the same normalized design for
any database engine.

We are at least 15-20 years past the days when the developer of a
desktop database app needed to worry about the physical storage of
data. It's only in edge cases where any modern developer is going to
start considering it in the design of the database schema.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/