Ms Access 2000 - 2003

H

heron

If I have more than about 16 tables feeding a query I get the message "Query
too complex". Is this a bug, limitation or what. Has the matter improved
in Access 2003?
 
A

Allen Browne

Access 2003 supports 32 tables in a query, up to 50 nested queries, but only
255 fields. 64k characters in the SQL statement.

These are the same numbers as Access 2000. The only change is 99 ANDs in a
WHERE/HAVING clause, instead of 40.

The "Query too complex" message simply means that JET is unable to interpret
the SQL statement. There could be lots of reasons for that, e.g.:
- incorrect bracketing;
- field/table names that contain spaces/odd chars but were not enclosed in
square brackets;
- data types don't match (e.g. undeclared parameters, or values picked up
from a form);
- bad field name (e.g. FROM, which is a reserved word in SQL).
 
L

Larry Linson

heron said:
If I have more than about 16 tables feeding a query I
get the message "Query too complex". Is this a bug,
limitation or what. Has the matter improved
in Access 2003?
Click to expand...

It is possible to create a Query that is too complex to be processed by the
Query builder, even though the SQL will likely work. Generally, if you want
to use the Query Builder UI for creating your Query, you can create simpler
Queries to use as data sources in more complex ones. One limitation is that
you can't have more than 255 Fields in either a Table or a Query.

As far as I know, there hasn't been any great change in this area between
versions of 32-bit Access (that would be starting with Access 95). There was
very little obvious Access-specific change between Access 2002 and 2003 --
if you go to the Microsoft website to look for new features, you will find
most of them are applicable across Office, not just in Access.

Larry Linson
Microsoft Access MVP
 
A

aaron.kempf

query too complex message means that the DB you choose is a piece of
shit and you should be using access data projects

i mean-- MDB just randomly craps out like this and MS won't do anything
about it

fat lazy project managers at microsoft can lick my nuts
 
A

aaron.kempf

funny stuff

i've got bigger balls that you lamer
i mean-- you sit around and accept mediocrity; meanwhile half of your
coworkers are excel dorks

they sit around and make the same fucking spreadsheet week in and week
out; meanwhile you move half the numbers for the whole company.

why?

BECAUSE MICROSOFT ISN'T TAKING ACCESS SERIOUSLY.

MICROSOFT WON'T FIGHT CRYSTAL REPORTS. MICROSOFTIES HAVE NO REAL WORLD
EXPERIENCE.

I have never met a single bluebadge that is worth their weight in
beans; i mean-- a bunch of fucking lamers. spreadsheet dorks. let's
sit around and make the same goddamn spreadsheet by hand every month.

fucking idiots; bill gates should be shot on live television for
fraudulently selling buggy software.

why has access FAILED in the marketplace?

BECAUSE IT'S TOO BUGGY

because all project managers at Microsoft are fat and drunk and lazy
they're not out kicking and screaming and GETTING SHIT DONE.

I have a laundry list of a dozen bugs in Access and when someone starts
taking me seriously is when i'll start being polite on these
newsgroups.

when redmond fixes my 'CREATE PROC spHAPPY' bug then maybe i'll sit
around and sing the praises of the wonderful database technology that
is jet.
 
A

aaron.kempf

Larry

by the way; Access _HAS_ evolved **GREATLY** in the past 10 years; it
is called Access Data Projects.

Don't you wish your database was fast like me?

Don't you wish your queries WORKED like me?

Don't you?
Don't you?
 
Top