>Generally narrower table designs are also >more space efficient, but I think that's a result of good normalization >and elimination of redundancies, rather than just the mathematics of >rowsize times rows.
I totally agree, Bill, that a narrow table design is 'better'. But if the primary requirement is that the table take up less space, then 'better' may not be better. David's row space calculation was what I was looking for. If there was not much difference, then I'd go thinner (thinner is 'better', right?). But there seems to be potentially quite a difference if his calculations are right! Karen ================================================ TO SEE MESSAGE POSTING GUIDELINES: Send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: INTRO rbase-l ================================================ TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send a plain text email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message body, put just two words: UNSUBSCRIBE rbase-l ================================================ TO SEARCH ARCHIVES: http://www.mail-archive.com/rbase-l%40sonetmail.com/
