Split table or not ?

Hi all,
I have a Customer table with about 200 fields and thousands rows. Most of
customers only have data in some fields - that necessary to identify them. I
wonder if I should split my table to two (or more ?) tables that have the ONE
TO ONE relastionship to reduce the blank in the table ? Any idea ? Thanks.

200 fields seems like about 160 too many. Is your table properly normalized?
Can you give us some idea of why you think you need so many fields? What
type of data are you storing in these tables?

--
Duane Hookom
MS Access MVP

"Khoa" wrote in message
...
Hi all,
I have a Customer table with about 200 fields and thousands rows. Most of
customers only have data in some fields - that necessary to identify them.
I
wonder if I should split my table to two (or more ?) tables that have the
ONE
TO ONE relastionship to reduce the blank in the table ? Any idea ? Thanks.

Hi Duane. Thanks for your deal with.
I have some Word documents that using the information of customers in my
database. The .doc varies from others. That why I have many fields. The
ex-fields are (in brief): Father; IDcard; DateOfIssue; PlaceOfIssue;
YearOfBirth; Address; Phone ...., acreage, attach-doc1, attach-doc2, ... ,
attach-doc20. ...
By the way, I wonder how to send data from sub-table to Word ? For e.g:
Customer CustomID=15 has 20 attached documents, and I have to raise up to 20
ex-fields since WORD only link to my table ONE record/time. Or If I change 20
attach-doc fields (or may be more) to a sub-table, how do I re-convert those
rows to fields (for working with WORD). Or any better ways ?
Many thanks.

"Duane Hookom" wrote:

200 fields seems like about 160 too many. Is your table properly normalized?
Can you give us some idea of why you think you need so many fields? What
type of data are you storing in these tables?

--
Duane Hookom
MS Access MVP

"Khoa" wrote in message
...
Hi all,
I have a Customer table with about 200 fields and thousands rows. Most of
customers only have data in some fields - that necessary to identify them.
I
wonder if I should split my table to two (or more ?) tables that have the
ONE
TO ONE relastionship to reduce the blank in the table ? Any idea ? Thanks.

I would normalize the tables and worry about the forms, merging, and
reporting once you have a good table structure set. There are methods in
Word merging to move to the next record within a single document. There is
also a generic concatenate function at
http://www.rogersaccesslibrary.com/O...p#Hookom,Duane that can
build a "subtable".

--
Duane Hookom
MS Access MVP

"Khoa" wrote in message
...
Hi Duane. Thanks for your deal with.
I have some Word documents that using the information of customers in my
database. The .doc varies from others. That why I have many fields. The
ex-fields are (in brief): Father; IDcard; DateOfIssue; PlaceOfIssue;
YearOfBirth; Address; Phone ...., acreage, attach-doc1, attach-doc2, ... ,
attach-doc20. ...
By the way, I wonder how to send data from sub-table to Word ? For e.g:
Customer CustomID=15 has 20 attached documents, and I have to raise up to
20
ex-fields since WORD only link to my table ONE record/time. Or If I change
20
attach-doc fields (or may be more) to a sub-table, how do I re-convert
those
rows to fields (for working with WORD). Or any better ways ?
Many thanks.

"Duane Hookom" wrote:

200 fields seems like about 160 too many. Is your table properly
normalized?
Can you give us some idea of why you think you need so many fields? What
type of data are you storing in these tables?

--
Duane Hookom
MS Access MVP

"Khoa" wrote in message
...
Hi all,
I have a Customer table with about 200 fields and thousands rows. Most
of
customers only have data in some fields - that necessary to identify
them.
I
wonder if I should split my table to two (or more ?) tables that have
the
ONE
TO ONE relastionship to reduce the blank in the table ? Any idea ?
Thanks.

Eureka! I think I've found a solution for my issue. Cross Query will solve
it. Thank you for the link. It seem to be useful. I'll give it a try.
Best regard.

"Duane Hookom" wrote:

I would normalize the tables and worry about the forms, merging, and
reporting once you have a good table structure set. There are methods in
Word merging to move to the next record within a single document. There is
also a generic concatenate function at
http://www.rogersaccesslibrary.com/O...p#Hookom,Duane that can
build a "subtable".

--
Duane Hookom
MS Access MVP

"Khoa" wrote in message
...
Hi Duane. Thanks for your deal with.
I have some Word documents that using the information of customers in my
database. The .doc varies from others. That why I have many fields. The
ex-fields are (in brief): Father; IDcard; DateOfIssue; PlaceOfIssue;
YearOfBirth; Address; Phone ...., acreage, attach-doc1, attach-doc2, ... ,
attach-doc20. ...
By the way, I wonder how to send data from sub-table to Word ? For e.g:
Customer CustomID=15 has 20 attached documents, and I have to raise up to
20
ex-fields since WORD only link to my table ONE record/time. Or If I change
20
attach-doc fields (or may be more) to a sub-table, how do I re-convert
those
rows to fields (for working with WORD). Or any better ways ?
Many thanks.

"Duane Hookom" wrote:

200 fields seems like about 160 too many. Is your table properly
normalized?
Can you give us some idea of why you think you need so many fields? What
type of data are you storing in these tables?

--
Duane Hookom
MS Access MVP

"Khoa" wrote in message
...
Hi all,
I have a Customer table with about 200 fields and thousands rows. Most
of
customers only have data in some fields - that necessary to identify
them.
I
wonder if I should split my table to two (or more ?) tables that have
the
ONE
TO ONE relastionship to reduce the blank in the table ? Any idea ?
Thanks.