Stuart McLachlan
stuart at lexacorp.com.pg
Sat Feb 21 17:30:33 CST 2004
On 21 Feb 2004 at 17:39, DJK(John) Robinson wrote: > I think you've all lost the plot, mostly: > > 1. Each individual answer *has* to identify the question it relates to, > if you want to make any sense of the analysis! (Re-read Mark's posting, > repeated below. There are different simultaneously existing sets of 25 > questions, and each set varies with time.) > > 2. So a million records at 6 bytes each gives you ... 6 MB! Maybe I've > been working too much with SQLS lately, but this minuscule amount, coupled > with the simplicity and flexibility of design, and ease of > querying/reporting, is "more efficient" (Mark's phrase) than groping about > in strings. > IF (really?) you think that disk space is the only criterion, then you > shouldn't be wasting a whole byte on each answer, when a couple of bits > would do! > > Stick to Normal form, unless there's a GOOD reason not to. > It's not the overall size, it's the number of records. As Mark said: ".but with this method I will be over 1 million records in 6 months. I've informed them they will need some BE other than access for this scenario. The question I have...is there a more efficient way to store this type of data?" Manipulating 1,000,000+ records in an Access table can be a real PITA. -- Lexacorp Ltd http://www.lexacorp.com.pg Information Technology Consultancy, Software Development,System Support.