Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

What consumes more space ?

Discussion in 'Information Technology' started by Ulrich1947, Jul 28, 2006.

Tags:
  1. Ulrich1947

    Ulrich1947
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi all,

    On tables, what needs or space (resp. memory): 1 table with 100 fields or 4
    tables with each 25 fields.

    Or is it not significant at all?

    Thanks a lot

    Ulrich 1947
     
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    Is There An Increasing Trend Of More And More Sikh Girls Dating Bihari Hindu Guys? General Sep 24, 2016
    Sikhism More Than Just Another Religion New to Sikhism Jul 25, 2016
    Interfaith I Have More Sikhs In My Cabinet Than Modi Does - Trudeau Interfaith Dialogues Mar 12, 2016
    I want to learn more about Sikhism New to Sikhism Jan 11, 2016
    Health More personal stuff about anxiety Blogs Dec 11, 2015

  3. Allen Browne

    Allen Browne
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Irrelevant.

    The overhead for 100 fields spread over 4 tables is very slightly more than
    the overhead for 100 fields in 1 table.

    The important question is, What is the correct relational design. A table
    with 100 fields is a really bad design.

    --
    Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
    Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
    Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

    "Ulrich1947" <Ulrich1947@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:5365594A-F19D-4398-8F31-6391AA749864@microsoft.com...
    > Hi all,
    >
    > On tables, what needs or space (resp. memory): 1 table with 100 fields or
    > 4
    > tables with each 25 fields.
    >
    > Or is it not significant at all?
    >
    > Thanks a lot
    >
    > Ulrich 1947
     
  4. Douglas J. Steele

    Douglas J. Steele
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    <picky>
    A table with 100 fields is very likely a really bad design.
    </picky>

    Just because none of us have ever seen a legitimate need for 100 fields in a
    single table in a properly normalized database doesn't mean that it's
    impossible for such a case to exist! <g>

    --
    Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
    http://I.Am/DougSteele
    (no private e-mails, please)


    "Allen Browne" <AllenBrowne@SeeSig.Invalid> wrote in message
    news:Opc%23NOBnGHA.4224@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
    > Irrelevant.
    >
    > The overhead for 100 fields spread over 4 tables is very slightly more
    > than the overhead for 100 fields in 1 table.
    >
    > The important question is, What is the correct relational design. A table
    > with 100 fields is a really bad design.
    >
    > --
    > Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
    > Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
    > Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.
    >
    > "Ulrich1947" <Ulrich1947@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > news:5365594A-F19D-4398-8F31-6391AA749864@microsoft.com...
    >> Hi all,
    >>
    >> On tables, what needs or space (resp. memory): 1 table with 100 fields or
    >> 4
    >> tables with each 25 fields.
    >>
    >> Or is it not significant at all?
    >>
    >> Thanks a lot
    >>
    >> Ulrich 1947

    >
    >
     
  5. Joseph Meehan

    Joseph Meehan
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Ulrich1947 wrote:
    > Hi all,
    >
    > On tables, what needs or space (resp. memory): 1 table with 100
    > fields or 4 tables with each 25 fields.
    >
    > Or is it not significant at all?
    >
    > Thanks a lot
    >
    > Ulrich 1947


    I would suggest that the issue is not likely to be space (memory) as
    current version of Access can handle very large databases, but rather it is
    an issue with how well Access you the writer of the database can use the
    data. Properly normalized data in four related tables is likely to be far
    more efficient than non-normalized data in a single table. It also is
    likely to require less total space.

    If you are talking about a properly normalized table with 100 fields or
    four tables with 25 fields broking down from the 100 fields just to reduce
    the number of fields, then stick with the single table, you would only
    create complications by increasing the number of tables.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
     
  6. Jerry Whittle

    Jerry Whittle
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I swear that I have seen one and even created the table myself. In fact I had
    to use a 1-1 relationship to spread it out over 132 fields in two tables!

    It was for a coroner's office. Death tends to be a very singular event being
    very likely that the "customer" will every have more than one such "order" if
    you catch my drift. Also being government, there were all kinds of strange
    one-off questions. Of course there were lookup tables for things like cause
    of death and the table of Doctors could be related.

    --
    Jerry Whittle
    Light. Strong. Cheap. Pick two. Keith Bontrager - Bicycle Builder.


    "Douglas J. Steele" wrote:

    > <picky>
    > A table with 100 fields is very likely a really bad design.
    > </picky>
    >
    > Just because none of us have ever seen a legitimate need for 100 fields in a
    > single table in a properly normalized database doesn't mean that it's
    > impossible for such a case to exist! <g>
    >
    > --
    > Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
    > http://I.Am/DougSteele
    > (no private e-mails, please)
    >
    >
    > "Allen Browne" <AllenBrowne@SeeSig.Invalid> wrote in message
    > news:Opc%23NOBnGHA.4224@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
    > > Irrelevant.
    > >
    > > The overhead for 100 fields spread over 4 tables is very slightly more
    > > than the overhead for 100 fields in 1 table.
    > >
    > > The important question is, What is the correct relational design. A table
    > > with 100 fields is a really bad design.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
    > > Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
    > > Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.
    > >
    > > "Ulrich1947" <Ulrich1947@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > > news:5365594A-F19D-4398-8F31-6391AA749864@microsoft.com...
    > >> Hi all,
    > >>
    > >> On tables, what needs or space (resp. memory): 1 table with 100 fields or
    > >> 4
    > >> tables with each 25 fields.
    > >>
    > >> Or is it not significant at all?
    > >>
    > >> Thanks a lot
    > >>
    > >> Ulrich 1947

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    >
     
  7. Ulrich1947

    Ulrich1947
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Doug

    although I value your help in here usually as very helpful, this was
    definetely not one of your better replies. Thanks, for telling me, I'm stupid.

    Did it cross your mind, that one can ask general questions just to get
    general answers?

    Anyway, nice try to be funny.

    Thanks nevertheless

    Ulrich 1947
     
  8. Allen Browne

    Allen Browne
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Acually, Ulrich 1947, I think I deserved that comment, not Doug.

    I was trying to answer your question:
    a) technically (i.e. 4 tables is insignificantly more space than 1), and
    b) practically (i.e. use a normalized design.)

    I did not intend to insult you, but I think Doug jumped in to support you.

    --
    Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
    Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
    Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

    "Ulrich1947" <Ulrich1947@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:42944293-28B7-40A5-8D29-A3E08CE32B0F@microsoft.com...
    > Hi Doug
    >
    > although I value your help in here usually as very helpful, this was
    > definetely not one of your better replies. Thanks, for telling me, I'm
    > stupid.
    >
    > Did it cross your mind, that one can ask general questions just to get
    > general answers?
    >
    > Anyway, nice try to be funny.
    >
    > Thanks nevertheless
    >
    > Ulrich 1947
     
  9. Ulrich1947

    Ulrich1947
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Hi Allen,

    I did not want to embarressed and by no means I felt insulted. No problem
    whatsoever. I just thought I should answer that comment. Sometimes one has
    to. So, Thanks for the help anyway.

    Ulrich 1947
     
  10. Douglas J. Steele

    Douglas J. Steele
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Sorry you felt insulted, but as Allen correctly surmised, my comments were a
    direct reponse to his comments (hence why I put it as a response to his
    post, and not to your post)

    If you re-read them in that context, hopefully you'll see that I was
    supporting you, as Allen suggested.

    --
    Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
    http://I.Am/DougSteele
    (no private e-mails, please)


    "Ulrich1947" <Ulrich1947@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:42944293-28B7-40A5-8D29-A3E08CE32B0F@microsoft.com...
    > Hi Doug
    >
    > although I value your help in here usually as very helpful, this was
    > definetely not one of your better replies. Thanks, for telling me, I'm
    > stupid.
    >
    > Did it cross your mind, that one can ask general questions just to get
    > general answers?
    >
    > Anyway, nice try to be funny.
    >
    > Thanks nevertheless
    >
    > Ulrich 1947
    >
     

Share This Page