[AccessD] On DB Bloat, Bad DB Design, and various

Susan Harkins ssharkins at bellsouth.net
Wed May 26 06:59:05 CDT 2004


If I may... 

What makes either of you think that the other isn't correct in his own
right? This is an issue that simply doesn't have a right or wrong. 

Yes, years ago, field length was an issue because of memory -- it no longer
is. No one cares about that anymore unless they're working with a
tremendously large amount of data -- and then, they're probably not using
Access. 

On the other hand, JC, it is perfectly acceptable to use field size to limit
values. You may not do it, but it is perfectly acceptable. I could take your
logic another step and say why bother with data types? I can make the data
anything I want using the right conversion function and code, so why bother?
Access trainers still teach people that they CAN limit the field's size.
It's there, you can use it or not use it. There's nothing wrong with doing
so. 

You're both right -- and you should both use the tools you have the best you
can. Period. 

Susan H.  




>I'm the expert.

No argument.

>Quite often the client doesn't know what he/she needs.

No argument.

>If there would be a good reason to limit a text field to 53 chars, I 
>would
tell or simply apply it.

No argument.  IF THERE WERE GOOD REASON.

>As some examples, ISO country codes are either two or three chars,
BIC(SWIFT) codes are 8 or 11 chars, and IBAN codes are, by definition, max.
34 chars - anything above these numbers would represent an error and would
make no sense to store.

If you are not using a lookup table for this then you have issues.  I will
hand you this one I suppose, so lookup tables may in certain circumstances
be limited.  We are assuming here that we suspect the user will be writing
books in the country code fields if we don't get out the handcuffs?

>Here, no city name is longer than 20 chars and no street name is longer
than 34 chars.

Today.

>Thus 50 is a reasonable limit for domestic address lines which, by the 
>way,
is also what Access's table designer suggests.

Do I look impressed with what Access table designer suggests?

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Gustav Brock
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 7:17 AM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] On DB Bloat, Bad DB Design, and various


Hi John

> I keep asking (and nobody is responding) - whose data is it?  Whose
database
> is it.

In most cases, the client's.

> Who are YOU to TELL the client that 53 characters is all they need?

I'm the expert. Quite often the client doesn't know what he/she needs.
If there would be a good reason to limit a text field to 53 chars, I would
tell or simply apply it.
As some examples, ISO country codes are either two or three chars, BIC
(SWIFT) codes are 8 or 11 chars, and IBAN codes are, by definition, max. 34
chars - anything above these numbers would represent an error and would make
no sense to store.

Here, no city name is longer than 20 chars and no street name is longer than
34 chars. Thus 50 is a reasonable limit for domestic address lines which, by
the way, is also what Access's table designer suggests.

/gustav

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



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




More information about the AccessD mailing list