[AccessD] Field Sizes

We may have discussed it before, but that doesn't mean we all agreed!  I
object to 255 because in prior versions of Access I ran into problems of
"query too complex" when all the query fields were 255 because they
inherited the table widths.  If you don't want to save 255 characters in
a field, there is absolutely no point in making the field that wide! So,
there!! <g>

(Let the flames begin .... )

Charlotte Foust


-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart McLachlan [mailto:stuart at lexacorp.com.pg] 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 2:18 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Field Sizes


On 25 Aug 2005 at 11:27, John Clark wrote:

> I've got bigger problems right now, but I've meant to ask something 
> forever and...well...today is the day, I guess. What do y'all use for 
> standard sizes for typical text fields, such as Last Name, First Name,

> Address, City, etc.? Is there a "common practice rule" concerning 
> this?
> 

We've had this discussion before <g>

255 characters.

Access doesn't use fixed length storage for strings and you don't save
any 
space by defining text fields as less than the maximum allowable.  I
change 
the default field size for text strings to 255 in Options and never
change 
it for individual filed definitions.

All that restricting field sizes does for you is increase the risk of 
truncating data or throwing up error messages at the user sometime in
the 
future.



-- 
Stuart


-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com