Hi Murray
My database is structured like this:

table1 = Company Details
table2 = Instruments
table3 = InstrumentHistory

It's the InstrumentHistory table that has to many fields.
Each record in this table has 182 filed (oops)

Checked_Against_Remark
Cross_Checked_Rem
Repair_Remark
Ins_Res_Name_V1
Ins_Res_Name_V2
Ins_Res_Name_V3
Ins_Res_Tol_V1
Ins_Res_Tol_V2
Ins_Res_Tol_V3
Ins_Applied_V1
Ins_Applied_V2
Ins_Applied_V3
Ins_Reading_V1
Ins_Reading_V2
Ins_Reading_V3
Ins_PF_V1
Ins_PF_V2
Ins_PF_V3
Cont_Res_Name_V1
Cont_Res_Name_V2
Cont_Res_Name_V3
Cont_Res_Tol_V1
Cont_Res_Tol_V2
Cont_Res_Tol_V3
Cont_Applied_V1
Cont_Applied_V2
Cont_Applied_V3
Cont_Reading_V1
Cont_Reading_V2
Cont_Reading_V3
Cont_PF_V1
Cont_PF_V2
Cont_PF_V3
VoltAC_Name_V1
VoltAC_Name_V2
VoltAC_Name_V3
VoltAC_Tol_V1
VoltAC_Tol_V2
VoltAC_Tol_V3
VoltAC_Applied_V1
VoltAC_Applied_V2
VoltAC_Applied_V3
VoltAC_Reading_V1
VoltAC_Reading_V2
VoltAC_Reading_V3
VoltAC_PF_V1
VoltAC_PF_V2
VoltAC_PF_V3
VoltDC_Name_V1
VoltDC_Name_V2
VoltDC_Name_V3
VoltDC_Tol_V1
VoltDC_Tol_V2
VoltDC_Tol_V3
VoltDC_Applied_V1
VoltDC_Applied_V2
voltDC_Applied_V3
VoltDC_Reading_V1
VoltDC_Reading_V2
VoltDC_Reading_V3
VoltDC_PF_V1
VoltDC_PF_V2
VoltDC_PF_V3
CurrentAC_Name_V1
CurrentAC_Name_V2
CurrentAC_Name_V3
CurrentAC_Tol_V1
CurrentAC_Tol_V2
CurrentAC_Tol_V3
CurrentAC_Applied
CurrentAC_Applied
CurrentAC_Applied
CurrentAC_Reading
CurrentAC_Reading
CurrentAC_Reading
CurrentAC_PF_V1
CurrentAC_PF_V2
CurrentAC_PF_V3
CurrentDC_Name_V1
CurrentDC_Name_V2
CurrentDC_Name_V3
CurrentDC_Tol_V1
CurrentDC_Tol_V2
CurrentDC_Tol_V3
CurrentDC_Applied
CurrentDC_Applied
CurrentDC_Applied
CurrentDC_Reading
CurrentDC_Reading
CurrentDC_Reading
CurrentDC_PF_V1
CurrentDC_PF_V2
CurrentDC_PF_V3
Loop_Res_Name_V1
Loop_Res_Name_V2
Loop_Res_Name_V3
Loop_Tol_V1
Loop_Tol_V2
Loop_Tol_V3
Loop_Applied_V1
Loop_Applied_V2
Loop_Applied_V3
Loop_Reading_V1
Loop_Reading_V2
Loop_Reading_V3
Loop_PF_V1
Loop_PF_V2
Loop_PF_V3
PSC_PFC_Name_V1
PSC_PFC_Name_V2
PSC_PFC_Name_V3
PSC_PFC_Tol_V1
PSC_PFC_Tol_V2
PSC_PFC_Tol_V3
PSC_PFC_Applied_V
PSC_PFC_Applied_V
PSC_PFC_Applied_V
PSC_PFC_Reading_V
PSC_PFC_Reading_V
PSC_PFC_Reading_V
PSC_PFC_PF_V1
PSC_PFC_PF_V2
PSC_PFC_PF_V3
Earth_Ohms_Name_V
Earth_Ohms_Name_V
Earth_Ohms_Name_V
Earth_Ohms_Tol_V1
Earth_Ohms_Tol_V2
Earth_Ohms_Tol_V3
Earth_Ohms_Applie
Earth_Ohms_Applie
Earth_Ohms_Applie
Earth_Ohms_Readin
Earth_Ohms_Readin
Earth_Ohms_Reading_V3
Earth_Ohms_PF_V1
Earth_Ohms_PF_V2
Earth_Ohms_PF_V3
Earth_Bond_Name_V
Earth_Bond_Name_V
Earth_Bond_Name_V
Earth_Bond_Tol_V1
Earth_Bond_Tol_V2
Earth_Bond_Tol_V3
Earth_Bond_Applie
Earth_Bond_Applie
Earth_Bond_Applie
Earth_Bond_Readin
Earth_Bond_Readin
Earth_Bond_Readin
Earth_Bond_PF_V1
Earth_Bond_PF_V2
Earth_Bond_PF_V3
Flash_Test_Name_V
Flash_Test_Name_V
Flash_Test_Name_V
Flash_Test_Tol_V1
Flash_Test_Tol_V2
Flash_Test_Tol_V3
Flash_Test_Applie
Flash_Test_Applie
Flash_Test_Applie
Flash_Test_Readin
Flash_Test_Readin
Flash_Test_Readin
Flash_Test_PF_V1
Flash_Test_PF_V2
Flash_Test_PF_V3
RCD_Name_V1
RCD_Name_V2
RCD_Name_V3
RCD_Tol_V1
RCD_Tol_V2
RCD_Tol_V3
RCD_Applied_V1
RCD_Applied_V2
RCD_Applied_V3
RCD_Reading_V1
RCD_Reading_V2
RCD_Reading_V3
RCD_PF_V
RCD_PF_V2



"Murray *ACE*" <forums@HAHAgreat-web-sights.com> wrote in message
news:g28hhi$k$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Why not have two tables instead of one?
>
> Table one would describe the person taking the test with a record ID and
> table two would be the results table keyed to each record ID? With a
> design like this, one record in table one could be linked to any number of
> records in table two, each of which contains only the fields necessary to
> describe a given result. Your field count would drop dramatically.
>
> --
> Murray --- ICQ 71997575
> Adobe Community Expert
> (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
> ==================
> http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
> http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
> ==================
>
>
> "Andy" <andy@work.com> wrote in message
> news:g28fnd$rgn$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>> Thanks Guys
>> Each of the fields is a possible reading from a test result. Not all
>> fields need to van a value, but the option has to be available.
>> For instance, the user would enter his/her test results in to the
>> relevant text fields. Not all results will have all values.
>> Each text field is a unique reading and not duplicated in the database.
>> I should be using MSSQL i know, but i have yet to make the leap and my
>> knowledge is limited where MSSQL is concerned.
>>
>> Thanks for the advice
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Philo" <meansyou@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:g260c5$32l$1@forums.macromedia.com...
>>>I am with David, you have a desgin problem. I see a whole series of 1,
>>> 2 & 3 on your field names. That means there should be a way to
>>> normalize that where you would have 3 records, one for each of the
>>> numbers 1 thru 3.
>>>
>>> A 160 fields to complete on a form seems like a huge time consuming
>>> task for a user to complete. There should be someway for the user to
>>> break it up and from what little I can see it looks like it could be
>>> broken into thirds.
>>>
>>> I would also consder changing to MSSQL. Access is slow and prone to
>>> many problems including corrupted files.
>>
>>
>