A problem with Option B is that not all your records will have comments, so any view you construct between the 2 to use in reports, etc., will have to be a Left Outer Join.
If you're leary of the Note datatype, and since you say that for now the length would be limited to 250, you could just make it a Text 250 column. Since your table is not very wide I don't think it's a horrible option. Karen > Paul, > > I probably was not very clear. The data in this table will be accessed > constantly throughout > > the day and any comments will always be brought up at that time as well. > Any reports would > > always contain the comments also. So the "Comment" table would be > accessed every time > > the main record was. There may not be any comments for the record, but a > check would have > > to be made anyway. > > > > Thus I do not think the traffic will be lower as the program will have > to access the second table > > on every inquiry, update ,etc. Even if no comment is linked to a record, > any program would > > have to check to see if one was. So I believe the traffic will actually > be higher with option B. > > > > I would have agreed with you 100% when thinking about this "off the cuff" > so to speak. But > > after thinking about it for a while, I am thinking with the over head of > a second table, I am beginning to > > think otherwise. > > > > It is said that a good database always starts with a good design. So I > have been attempting to > > put more thought up front in the small details for over all performance > and functionality. Sometimes > > performance and functionality are at odds with each other. (Not always) > I am thinking that option A > > in this case might be the better choice, unless there are consequences > about using a NOTE data > > type on the main table. > > > > Thanks again, > > >
