<< I tried to get them to go vertical, with one column for the Tissue name (like "Spleen"), another column for the test name (like Chromium), and another for the value (like 100). Other columns, too, like date test made, patient data, that would go in a header table then. She refused, saying their other tables have 100 or so columns in a spreadsheet-like format, that's what her users are used to, "no way" would they like a vertical format. >>
Although, as a general rule, tables that wide are bad design in this particular case it sounds like the design is perfectly appropriate. If all those fields will be filled in and the number and names of the columns is constant, then the design is actually reasonable. If your table design doesn't violate any of the 7.6 limits (and it sounds like it doesn't) then send a copy of the database to RBTI. If there really is a problem and it's reparable, I'm sure they'll take care of it. How are you creating the table, by the way? That many columns is too many for a CREATE TABLE command -- it overflows the maximum command length. Did you try the experiment with shorter column names? If you can't fix it, perhaps you could decompose it into two or three large, but smaller than 750 columns, tables and let them work in "Autopsy Part I, Autopsy Part 2, and Autopsy Part 3. -- Larry
