[AccessD] Why Change Field Size/was Change Field Size

Ah hell, I still have all my hair and I'll make "bald statements" all I want
to.  

Jürgen's just POd because he wasn't included in the mutual admiration
society.  I don't think you were even around "back in the day" when Jürgen
was getting into 'debates', back in the day when he was doing every little
thing in code because it was faster and he was on a dialup to a Nazi IT
center where he had to program around all their limitations.  I have never
seen ANYONE with more creativity than Jürgen.  Luckily he got a new job
IIRC.

Welcome back Jürgen. 

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com 

Contribute your unused CPU cycles to a good cause:
http://folding.stanford.edu/
-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of DWUTKA at marlow.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 4:06 PM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: Re: [AccessD] Why Change Field Size/was Change Field Size

True, but what you are talking about is not extremely useful.  The problem
is, to totally qualify a topic, and it's various solutions, would require
megabytes of background information and design theory.

Take for example the current topic of field size.  I use 255 for ALL text
fields.  I have my reasons.  Are there consequences to do this?  Yes.  Are
there consequences with limiting field sizes?  Yes.  To fully qualify my
reasons, or the reasons for the other side would take weeks of posting.
Every topic on the matter can branch into a dozen other topics, each with
their various 'side issues'.  

With text fields within a Jet database, you have the subject of how data is
written to the text fields.  Jet uses a one 'size' byte to determine the
length of the text that follows.  So there is no lost space when the full
limit is not used.  Then there is the topic of a record size limit, which
gets into the topics of page sizes, proper normalization, relational design,
data validation, etc.

Each branch of the topic spreads out...further and further.

So, what's my point?  The point is that NEITHER side should make 'bald
statements', without some sort of basic qualification.  This applies to all
of our 'debates' (and we've had some heated ones).  

As for the mutual admiration society, well, I think we all need a pat on the
back sometimes, and quite frankly, nothing is more fun then debating
opposite sides of a topic with an equal in the field.  It can be dangerous
though, tempers can rise, and egos can be crushed, so every once in a while,
we need to admire each other and let our mutual respect be shown.  It just
cushions the blows from the next 'debate'! ;)

Drew