[AccessD] Number vs text data type

Whoa, whoa, wait a second! I didn't mean to imply that 
there are never cases where storing a number as text 
doesn't make sense, in fact I said exactly that in my 
message (granted, in just one line, but sheesh!). What you 
cite are "compelling reasons" to store a number as text. 
But when there is no compelling reason to store a numeric 
value as text it should be stored as a number, I believe 
that and have far fewer problems by following that 
strategy. 

Ron


On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:47:57 -0700
  "Charlotte Foust" <cfoust at infostatsystems.com> wrote:
>Same holds true for social security numbers in the US and 
>for telephone
>numbers everywhere.  There are good reasons NOT to use 
>numbers for some
>kinds of numeric data, which is probably where the 
>argument comes from
>in the first place, that and the old approach of 
>squeezing everything
>into the smallest possible datatype to shave storage 
>bytes.
>
>Charlotte Foust
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Susan Harkins [mailto:ssharkins at bellsouth.net] 
>Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:32 AM
>To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
>Subject: Re: [AccessD] Number vs text data type
>
>
>What about Zip Codes, etc... what possible purpose would 
>you have for
>treating such an entry as a number?
>
>I'm afraid this isn't old school -- it's still very alive 
>and with us.
>
>Susan H.