I believe it would Naomi. Each file has a 2gb limit. Once the fpt reaches 2gb, then the dbf is pretty much unusable as well though. If a memo field is in a different table, then its data will be stored in a separate fpt file and not in the same fpt as the memo fields in the 1st table. So if 2 tables exist with 2 memo fields each instead of 1 table with 4 memo fields, the time to reach the 2gb limit should in essence be twice as long (2 dbfs and 2 fpts). The only link between the two dbfs would be the key field. Sort of a horizontal splitting. I do not see where the threads you cited prove otherwise. Am I missing something? I really would like to know because I cannot see how it could be otherwise.



>>>Anything is possible - I would be more concerned about exceeding the 2GB limit. Perhaps a new linked table with only the new memo field and the key fields?
>>>
>>
>>I thought about it. But since almost each and every record will have an entry to the new memo field, I sort of dismissed this idea. But when I think about it now, after reading your message, putting the new memo field into a separate table will not save space but will minimize the possibility of the 2 Gb limit and data corruption. The downside, of course, is so much extra work to "link" the table in each and every query. Something to think about.
>>
>>Thank you for your suggestion.
>
>It would not minimize the possibility of the 2Gb limit. There was a thread recently by Michel Fournier on a similar problem.
>
>Can you make a search?