BruceM:

Your comment: It is unusual to add 30 fields to a normalized table and
still maintain the normalization, yet you seem unwilling to describe the new
need for 30 fields.

Response: That is because these fields had NOTHING to do with the
questions! As repeated stated, and repeatedly missed the question concern
disk access speed over the network and the speed of ACCESS to extra values
from a big record. That was the question and the only questions. Allen
Browne was kind enough to answer it.

Your comment: But all we have to go on is that you have 30 years
experience, from which it seems we are to accept that the design is beyond
question.

Response: I’ve re-read this entire series of comments and no where in there
did I say “you were accept that the design is beyond question”. I wish you
would point out where I said this. But again, you are taking a truly tiny
bit of background for a question and making it a mountain. The issue you
want to discuss had NOTHING to do with my original question, if you had
bothered to read it. If I remember, in my response to Duane, I said that
I’ve clean up other people messes and I’m sure other people have come along
behind me and clean up message that I left behind.

Your Comment: Had you been willing to describe the database's structure it
could be that somebody here, many of whom are well-trained and very
experienced, could have suggested a different approach.

Response:
1. This question had nothing to do with the db design. As stated above,
I've always been taught the exact opposite - that "Fields are cheap, records
are expensive" since going to disk is so slow versus accessing data in memory.

This is a disk access verus memory access question.


Your comments: Had you been willing to describe the database's structure it
could be that somebody here, many of whom are well-trained and very
experienced, could have suggested a different approach. You could have
accepted or rejected the suggestions, but since that conversation did not
take place it seems you posted to argue with the contention that "fields are
expensive, records are cheap".

My response: Interesting comment. I have posted many database design
questions and I’ve either received no response from “many of whom are
well-trained and very experienced” or responses so vague that I’m left
scratching my head wondering what in the world they were talking about.
Sometime I was able to repost those question in other forums and receive
usable replies and other time I just had to come up with another approach.

I will say that though, I could not have climb partially up the Access
learning cliff with out the help of many people on this forum.

It has been my experience that posting something in the Database group is a
measure of last resort. This question is a prime example. People want to
talk about something that is not part of the question. All this time on
everyone’s part and NO ONE of the people who “are well-trained and very
experienced” answered the question! What a waste!





Dennis