Karen,
You say the table may become HUGE. And although
storage space may be an important consideration, it may not
be the only one. Retrieval may also be important.
If you have 1 million rows in a table having 11
columns, there would alternatively be 10 million rows in
your table having 3 columns.
Without knowing, I assume there is an indexed or
Primary Keyed row which is used to identify what you are
looking for. I also presume (without knowing) that the
database will travel 1 million indexed rows in a 3 column
table at the same speed as 1 million indexed rows in an 11
column table. [Please correct me if that is erroneous.
Would it be true for a non-indexed table?]
Searching an indexed table having 10% of the
records, then looking at those (many fewer) records is
likely to be far faster than going through the larger table.
Or will the index essentially make the effective
search time equivalent?
Interesting issues.
Randy Peterson
----- Original Message -----
From: "David M. Blocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: Table size comparison
> Karen
>
> I BELIEVE that a row in a table has 10 bytes standard
overhead, plus the
> number of bytes per column per row. So a table with 11
integer columns would
> have
> 10 + (4 x 11) = 54 bytes per row (4 bytes per integer
colulmn)
>
> A table that with the same data takes 10 rows, with 3
columns would need:
>
> 10 x (10 + (3 x 4)) = 10 x 34 = 340 bytes
>
> PLEASE, Razzak, correct me if I'm wrong, but in terms of
space it looks like
> a no brainer to use the first structure.
>
> David BLocker
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tellef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "All" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 11:18 AM
> Subject: Table size comparison
>
>
> >
> > RScope doesn't give me the kind of information I'm
> > interested in so I thought I'd find out if anyone here
> > knows the answer to this.
> >
> > I have the option of storing data 2 different ways and
> > I'm wondering which way would create the SMALLER table.
> > Nulls won't be much of a consideration and both tables
> > would work for me equally well.
> >
> > For each piece of information I need to track, the table
> > would either have (all columns are integer):
> > 1 row in a table with 11 columns
> > 10 rows in a table with 3 columns
> >
> > This has the potential of being a HUGE table so size of
> > the table is a prime consideration, even if I sacrifice
> > in other areas (ie true relational model).
> >
> >
> > 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/
