On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:51:01 -0800, Dennis
wrote:

The last time people responded to my question, they were concerned about the
whether or not these were normalized fields. Please let me state that the
row has been normalized to 3rd normal form and these fields are NOT
re-occurring fields.

One MVP who responded to my original question stated "Fields are expensive,
records are cheap".

That was me, and that (non-normal structure) was my concern. It is impossible
to tell from a brief post how knowledgable the poster might be about
relational design. As you well know, wide-flat, spreadsheetish, non-normalized
designs are a very common trap for beginners.

You're obviously not a beginner (now that I know more about your background!)
so my reply was out of line. My only excuse is that at the time I did NOT know
your level of skill. I apologize for jumping the gun.

What I consider "expensive" is that an improperly normalized table structure
will require far more work in getarounds, contorted queries, form and report
maintenance, and code than would a properly normalized design. Given that you
have (it seems) valid Entities with sixty or more discrete, atomic,
non-interdependent Attributes, I'll just express my mixed admiration and
sympathy and bow out.
--

John W. Vinson [MVP]