better may not be better / thinner is better my brain hurts!
----- Original Message ----- From: "tellef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 7:01 PM Subject: Re: Table size comparison > > >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/ ================================================ 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/
