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

The users just go and get more gas, eh?  So now you are letting your users
go in and change the field size of a table?  Why set the limit in the first
place, if you have users that not only are allowed to change the field size,
but also know how to do it?

Just out of curiousity, how many times have you been called, because someone
set a field size limit to 255, and the users couldn't enter their data?  Not
theory, how many actual times.

In the past 3 months, I have had 3 incidents were a db built by a previous
developer had field size limits, which I had to increase, because the users
were entering more data into the field.  On top of that, most of what I had
done was either new data entry screens, or reporting screens, and both of
those worked just fine with the new 'length' of the data, it was just the db
that couldn't store what they wanted.

Now, assuming (cause it's a pretty safe assumption) that you have never had
a user complain they couldn't put what they needed into a 255 character
field, how do you think the previous developer looked, when I come in, and
say, 'Yep, whoever built this set the maximum field length to 35
characters.', which I then get replied 'Why did he/she do that?', and what
do I answer? 'Got me, guess they figured that's all you needed'.  What do
you think those clients think of their original developers?

Drew

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Francisco H
Tapia
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 5:49 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] On DB Bloat, Bad DB Design, and various


DWUTKA at marlow.com wrote On 5/26/2004 2:29 PM:

>Francisco, first of all, I am honestly not sure how SQL server deals with
>character fields and their 'lengths'.  In Access, setting a field to a 255
>width does not make the storage space requirement any larger then if it is
>set to 50, unless someone types 51 or more characters.  Does SQL Server
take
>up the 'empty' space regardless?  Again, I'm not sure.
>
>  
>
No, they do not take more space, however you must calculate the number 
of characters you "expect" per field per table in order to set an 
estimated growth for your database.  This is one of things that usually 
gets skipped w/ many Access developers because generally db's might be 
no bigger than a few megs.  However if it is expected that the db will 
grow, you'll want to take that consideration for your client so they can 
properly allocate 100/200/300gig hdd's as needed.

>My analogy to a gas tank was not off, you just didn't make the connection I
>was trying to make.  The size of the gas tank is the maximum length of a
>text field, or 255.  That is what JET has designated as a test field max.
>The amount of gas you put in, is the limit YOU assign to the field.  Does
it
>make sense to not give them a full tank of gas? 
>
maybe you chose the wrong analogy, didja ever think that? :>
The reason that still doesn't make sense, is because I or whoever 
borrows the car can always re-fill the tank at any gas station.  Perhaps 
if you said I took an explorer and fitted it w/ a Ford Festiva Tank, 
wich only filled up to about 8 gallons....

> Putting a larger gas tank
>in, is like going to SQL Server.  If it's necessary, then do it.  If it's
>not, then don't.
>
>  
>
No that's like going from a 4 banger to a full 10 cylinder HEMMI.


-- 
-Francisco


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