Christopher Hawkins
clh at christopherhawkins.com
Thu May 27 19:05:38 CDT 2004
Post it up again! It might get a new lease on life now that we don't have that Text field size flamewar to distract us anymore. ;) -Christopher- ---- Original Message ---- From: jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com, Subject: RE: [AccessD] On DB Bloat, Bad DB Design, and various Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 19:05:32 -0400 >>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 > >-- >_______________________________________________ >AccessD mailing list >AccessD at databaseadvisors.com >http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd >Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com >