Hi all,

On tables, what needs or space (resp. memory): 1 table with 100 fields or 4
tables with each 25 fields.

Or is it not significant at all?

Thanks a lot

Ulrich 1947

Irrelevant.

The overhead for 100 fields spread over 4 tables is very slightly more than
the overhead for 100 fields in 1 table.

The important question is, What is the correct relational design. A table
with 100 fields is a really bad design.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Ulrich1947" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:5365594A-F19D-4398-8F31-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi all,
>
> On tables, what needs or space (resp. memory): 1 table with 100 fields or
> 4
> tables with each 25 fields.
>
> Or is it not significant at all?
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Ulrich 1947

<picky>
A table with 100 fields is very likely a really bad design.
</picky>

Just because none of us have ever seen a legitimate need for 100 fields in a
single table in a properly normalized database doesn't mean that it's
impossible for such a case to exist! <g>

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no private e-mails, please)


"Allen Browne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Opc%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Irrelevant.
>
> The overhead for 100 fields spread over 4 tables is very slightly more
> than the overhead for 100 fields in 1 table.
>
> The important question is, What is the correct relational design. A table
> with 100 fields is a really bad design.
>
> --
> Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
> Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
> Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.
>
> "Ulrich1947" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:5365594A-F19D-4398-8F31-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On tables, what needs or space (resp. memory): 1 table with 100 fields or
>> 4
>> tables with each 25 fields.
>>
>> Or is it not significant at all?
>>
>> Thanks a lot
>>
>> Ulrich 1947
>
>

Ulrich1947 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On tables, what needs or space (resp. memory): 1 table with 100
> fields or 4 tables with each 25 fields.
>
> Or is it not significant at all?
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Ulrich 1947

I would suggest that the issue is not likely to be space (memory) as
current version of Access can handle very large databases, but rather it is
an issue with how well Access you the writer of the database can use the
data. Properly normalized data in four related tables is likely to be far
more efficient than non-normalized data in a single table. It also is
likely to require less total space.

If you are talking about a properly normalized table with 100 fields or
four tables with 25 fields broking down from the 100 fields just to reduce
the number of fields, then stick with the single table, you would only
create complications by increasing the number of tables.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

I swear that I have seen one and even created the table myself. In fact I had
to use a 1-1 relationship to spread it out over 132 fields in two tables!

It was for a coroner's office. Death tends to be a very singular event being
very likely that the "customer" will every have more than one such "order" if
you catch my drift. Also being government, there were all kinds of strange
one-off questions. Of course there were lookup tables for things like cause
of death and the table of Doctors could be related.

--
Jerry Whittle
Light. Strong. Cheap. Pick two. Keith Bontrager - Bicycle Builder.


"Douglas J. Steele" wrote:

> <picky>
> A table with 100 fields is very likely a really bad design.
> </picky>
>
> Just because none of us have ever seen a legitimate need for 100 fields in a
> single table in a properly normalized database doesn't mean that it's
> impossible for such a case to exist! <g>
>
> --
> Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
> http://I.Am/DougSteele
> (no private e-mails, please)
>
>
> "Allen Browne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Opc%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Irrelevant.
> >
> > The overhead for 100 fields spread over 4 tables is very slightly more
> > than the overhead for 100 fields in 1 table.
> >
> > The important question is, What is the correct relational design. A table
> > with 100 fields is a really bad design.
> >
> > --
> > Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
> > Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
> > Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.
> >
> > "Ulrich1947" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:5365594A-F19D-4398-8F31-(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> On tables, what needs or space (resp. memory): 1 table with 100 fields or
> >> 4
> >> tables with each 25 fields.
> >>
> >> Or is it not significant at all?
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot
> >>
> >> Ulrich 1947
> >
> >
>
>
>

Hi Doug

although I value your help in here usually as very helpful, this was
definetely not one of your better replies. Thanks, for telling me, I'm stupid.

Did it cross your mind, that one can ask general questions just to get
general answers?

Anyway, nice try to be funny.

Thanks nevertheless

Ulrich 1947

Acually, Ulrich 1947, I think I deserved that comment, not Doug.

I was trying to answer your question:
a) technically (i.e. 4 tables is insignificantly more space than 1), and
b) practically (i.e. use a normalized design.)

I did not intend to insult you, but I think Doug jumped in to support you.

--
Allen Browne - Microsoft MVP. Perth, Western Australia.
Tips for Access users - http://allenbrowne.com/tips.html
Reply to group, rather than allenbrowne at mvps dot org.

"Ulrich1947" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:42944293-28B7-40A5-8D29-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi Doug
>
> although I value your help in here usually as very helpful, this was
> definetely not one of your better replies. Thanks, for telling me, I'm
> stupid.
>
> Did it cross your mind, that one can ask general questions just to get
> general answers?
>
> Anyway, nice try to be funny.
>
> Thanks nevertheless
>
> Ulrich 1947

Hi Allen,

I did not want to embarressed and by no means I felt insulted. No problem
whatsoever. I just thought I should answer that comment. Sometimes one has
to. So, Thanks for the help anyway.

Ulrich 1947

Sorry you felt insulted, but as Allen correctly surmised, my comments were a
direct reponse to his comments (hence why I put it as a response to his
post, and not to your post)

If you re-read them in that context, hopefully you'll see that I was
supporting you, as Allen suggested.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no private e-mails, please)


"Ulrich1947" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:42944293-28B7-40A5-8D29-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi Doug
>
> although I value your help in here usually as very helpful, this was
> definetely not one of your better replies. Thanks, for telling me, I'm
> stupid.
>
> Did it cross your mind, that one can ask general questions just to get
> general answers?
>
> Anyway, nice try to be funny.
>
> Thanks nevertheless
>
> Ulrich 1947
>