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

jcolby jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Thu May 27 18:05:32 CDT 2004


>Whatever happened to the WithEvents discussion(s) ... I was actually
learning things from that

Nice to hear that.  The answer is, I got very busy and no one else seems to
want to contribute on the subject.  ;-)

JWColby

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Steve Conklin
(Developer at UltraDNT)
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 2:36 PM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD] On DB Bloat, Bad DB Design, and various


Personally, I stick with 50 on all text fields because I'm admittedly
lazy.  if there's a spec for field called "notes", then I go to 255 or
maybe memo.  If I get a call/complaint, ever, I bump it to 255.
Anything with 255 that gets a call, goes to memo.  The hoops you went
through here are not a fair comparison to just a quick visit to Access'
table design.  It is a 30 second change most of the time for the table
design (forms and reports aside). I just don't see this as a big deal,
there are thousands of  things a "bad" developer might do that would irk
me more than this.

BUT ...

Whatever happened to the WithEvents discussion(s) ... I was actually
learning things from that, as opposed this non-stop debate over
relatively inconsequential minutiae.    This thread had devolved into a
waste of bits and bandwidth.

Steve



-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of
DWUTKA at marlow.com
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:25 PM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: RE: [AccessD] On DB Bloat, Bad DB Design, and various


I don't know about you Francisco, but I like to get things running the
first time.  When someone asks me to work on a system built by someone
else, then they have problems due to the original developers design, I
know that it wasn't my fault, but some customers may go 'It worked
before, now you broke it'.

Yes, I just had to increase a field size, which only took about an hour
and a half to do. (Why?  Because the original 'size limit' was set in
Access. The system was then ported to SQL Server.  The original size
limit of 35 characters (for a field to describe the exact location where
an accident
occurred) was ported into SQL server also.  The IT department at the
company running this thing refused to make the change in field size
(long story, not really the IT departments fault, they were banned from
messing with the project, for a while).  So I had a little web based
'interface' to the SQL Server.  Unfortunately, it didn't allow for
actual field 'changes'.  I could 'add' and 'delete' fields.  So I had to
make a temp field, run an update query to transfer the data into the
temp field.  delete the old field, make a new field with same name, and
longer field size, update the data back into the original field, and
then delete the old field.  With the amount of data involved, and the
delays in doing it through the 'web interface', it took about an hour
and a half (though I admit was fixing two fields, but it would have
taken just about as long for just that one).

So in the end, you're right, it was an easy fix, because I got $150 for
fixing it.  No sweat off of my back, because I got paid to fix it.

However, an interesting twist to this incident, that $150 was out of
pocket for the original developer, NOT the client.  The client bought
the system from the original developer.  The original developer hired me
to create an ASP interface for a portion of his system.  I did that.
The client paid for it, then paid for him to port it to SQL Server.  I
was paid to modify my system to pay for SQL Server.  The system works,
but they have issues that have cropped up due to severe design flaws in
the original system.  Since they have paid for the completely project,
he has to get the system running. Anything where my code 'should' work,
and isn't, I fix for free (so far, only have had a few issues with
handling single and double quotes). Everything else is due to the
original database design. I fixed the field size issue, because the
original developer is not very adept at working with SQL server
remotely.

Now think about that, is setting a field size limit to something close
to where you think your client won't exceed worth $150 a pop?

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 5:55 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 3:37 PM:

>There ya go, throwing fuel on the fire! <evilgrin>
>
>Actually, it's kind of a battle over 'bad practice' again.  JC and I
>have both been burned (In my case several times, within just the past
>few
months)
>by a previous developer setting some arbitrary field size limit.
>However, the only issue we have heard so far with setting it to 255 was

>Charlotte
had
>a Query too complex error, which is intriguing, to say the least.  But
>I haven't heard other incidents like that, so it may have been an
>isolated incident.
>
>
How were you burned? you just had to increase a field size, how
difficult was that?

--
-Francisco


--
_______________________________________________
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

--
_______________________________________________
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