network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | London, United Kingdom | |
| age | 46 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 4 months |
| seen | Jan 14 at 12:17 | |
| stats | profile views | 3 |
Old school techie.
|
May 8 |
answered | Trigger Performance : Is Using Trigger is a good way? |
|
Apr 14 |
answered | Database design: Dividing multiple identical tables, good or bad? |
|
Jan 11 |
awarded | Yearling |
|
Sep 12 |
answered | ER Modeling; multiplicity basics - one to many or many to many? |
|
Sep 7 |
answered | Multiple schema or multiple databases for better performance |
|
Jan 11 |
awarded | Teacher |
|
Jan 11 |
answered | DB Optimization with 2 to the power of N - Approach clarification |
|
Jan 10 |
answered | Inventory Database Design Issue |
|
Aug 12 |
comment |
overstating field size in database design @Jay - 10 bytes times 10 million records is around 100MB - still not something I'd worry about. Yes, there are cases where storage is important - at extreme scale, or on constrained devices, for instance. I don't think they apply to the original question though. If I had to chose how to spend my software development time, I would not go shrinking database columns in order to save disk space... |
|
Aug 11 |
comment |
overstating field size in database design Yeah, at extremes - 2TB counts as extreme in my book - you have to go for extreme optimizations. |
|
Aug 11 |
comment |
overstating field size in database design True - but not so as you'd notice in most real world situations I've encountered. On the other hand, re-writing an application because you've been too stingy with column widths causes real, measurable pain - I've got the scars to prove it. If you use VARCHAR, you only retrieve the data entered, and if the business domain includes addresses that are 100 characters long, restricting that width for performance reasons seems a poor trade-off to me. |
|
Aug 11 |
comment |
overstating field size in database design Given the low cost of hard drives, I'd not worry about efficiency of storage these days. As JNK says, there is an impact on indexing for very large fields - that's definitely worth bearing in mind. The pain of changing an application because you allocated too little space is far greater than the cost of a few extra bytes in your database table. |
