[AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design

Ooops, just went back and looked.  I indexed different fields between the
two databases.  Going back, and setting the indexes the same, caused both
databases (the one with a combo, and the one without the combo for the
Defaultcontrol) to be the exact same size again.

Go figure.  Went back and checked, because it didn't make sense to have more
data in there, since it's only creating a relationship, a soft one that
that!

Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Susan Harkins
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 1:57 PM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design



VERY interesting.  Have to give them half a point back, because there is a
small amount of 'bloat', if you use a query/table for the lookup.  But it's
negligible, and also, both databases grow when you index the field, just
grows a bit more.  I would never really call that 'bloat'.  Not trying to
back track, but to me, bloat is when a database grows in size over time, but
when compacted, it gets smaller.  The portion that is 'reduced' is bloat.
The portion left after the compact is 'overhead'.  That's my definition.
Admittedly, if you are going to run close to max db size, then lookups
should be removed, to get that much more space.  But we are talking overhead
space, not really 'bloat'.

==============Wait!!!!!!!!!!! Is it true bloat, or just normal increase due
to feature use. I mean, if you use it,  it's going to cost something
somewhere. So don't be so quick to label it -- but if it really bloat, then
OK. :) 

Susan H. 

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