ListBox Limit

[suzanne099]

Hello,

I am trying to use a list box based on a large query of records within an access form. The query contains 95,738 records, but the list box only lists 65,536.

Is there a default limit on the number of records shown in an access list box? If so, is there anyway to change this default to allow all the query records to be access via the list box?

Thanks.

Suzanne

[pks00]

That is a awful lot of records to display in a listbox and if anything isnt that user friendly (no offence meant !!!)

Have u thought of perhaps using a temp table? store the results of your query into this table then create a datasheet subform based on this temptable.

[ADezii]

Hello,

I am trying to use a list box based on a large query of records within an access form. The query contains 95,738 records, but the list box only lists 65,536.

Is there a default limit on the number of records shown in an access list box? If so, is there anyway to change this default to allow all the query records to be access via the list box?

Thanks.

Suzanne

To the best of my knowledge I know of no defined limit on List Boxes in Access, it probably also depends on the length of each entry and is not constant. I did, however, experiment with a much lower number of entries and got no where near 65,536 entries. Whatever the Default limit is, I'm pretty sure that it is not configurable.

[suzanne099]

Thank you for your thoughts. I am actually trying to mimic a program that is already in place with a new database that can be modified. I realize that I am trying to create a very large list box that will not be very efficient.

[pks00]

Looks like you have hit a limit and there isnt much you can do except rethink your solution http://support.microsoft.com/kb/187342

[sjbarber373]

Limit? Maybe. . .

65,536?? If I remember right, that was the old Excel row limit, so I wouldn't be surprised if your listbox had that limit too. After all, whoever created the Listbox probably thought that would be plenty of room; just not in your case. Only guessing of course. . .

[ashishkumarji]

thank you for sharing with us, this is really good

[NeoPa]

SJBarber:
65,536??

No. That isn't even the situation. Please re-read post #3 of this thread.

The simple truth of this matter is that the ListBox Control was never designed to handle amounts of data that would not be of practical use to anyone.

When it comes to handling data of that sort of size - or even of much less frankly - then a solution built on a Form would make much more sense.

Ashish:
thank you for sharing with us, this is really good

Really? I hate to seem argumentative but it doesn't even make any real sense, bearing in mind what was already shared in this thread over fourteen years ago - by someone who's shown they know what they're talking about and ran some tests to make sure.

[isladogs]

Actually I've done some tests and also hit a listbox limit of 65536.
I loaded a dataset of 175684 records into a listbox and 'only' the first 65536 records were displayed.

Further tests indicated that the number of fields & the amount of data didn't seem to alter the limit. Perhaps that wasn't the case back in 2007 when @adezii ran his tests

I repeated the test with an even larger dataset of 2.6 million UK postcodes. Exactly the same result. Listbox limit = 65536



Having said that it is in my opinion a completely ridiculous method of viewing a lot of data. Use a subform instead. It is much more efficient

[SwissProgrammer]

I remember being able to see past the first 65536.

I input over a 1,000,000 items and the listbox sorted them quickly and correctly.

I could scroll the listbox and see them all.

I could copy the entire list and save it to an rtf file.

I could copy selected items like from 65537 to 131072 and use them.

I was using VB6 sp5.

[isladogs]

Hi @swissprogramme r
That may have been so in VB6 but the OP was specifically referring to a listbox in an Access form.
Having said that, the thread is 14 years old so the OP is highly unlikely to read any of the recent posts