I agree on the concept, I use the same approach myself, but I never needed
300,000!

Are you saying you have 300,000 fields, or is there some other reason for
300,000 (I just can't get my head around 300,000 fields)?

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

wrote in message
oups.com...
I am designing an application with a submit function...program will
also allow for add, edit, and delete information inside of a database
(which is why its being titled DB1_# (# = Cell number)...I imagine by
the time I get done with this there will be like 300,000 named ranges
inside this single workbook alone...I know this sounds crazy but I am
trying to figure out the best way to allow for data extraction and
modification...would be much easier with named ranges...


Bob Phillips wrote:
Seems an awful lot of names. Why do you need so many, there must be
other
ways?

--
HTH

Bob Phillips

(replace somewhere in email address with gmail if mailing direct)

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey all,

I am trying to setup of a worksheet that has ranges A:F as a named
ranged using the name "DB1_#" (# = Cells 1 - 65535), I have noticed
that when I try to create a mass quantity of named ranges Excel craps
out on me at around 65407...anyone have any idea as to why this is or
if there is a macro I could run to create a worksheet with 65535 named
ranges using that setup? See example below if your confused...

ROW 1: DB1_1 (Ranges A:F)
ROW 2: DB1_2 (Ranges A:F)
ROW 3: DB1_3 (Ranges A:F)
ROW 4: DB1_4 (Ranges A:F)

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

ROW 65536: DB1_65536 (Ranges A:F)

Thank you kindly!