Responses inline:

Your comment: It is unusual to add 30 fields to a normalized table and
still maintain the normalization, yet you seem unwilling to describe the new
need for 30 fields.

Response: That is because these fields had NOTHING to do with the
questions! As repeated stated, and repeatedly missed the question concern
disk access speed over the network and the speed of ACCESS to extra values
from a big record. That was the question and the only questions. Allen
Browne was kind enough to answer it.

The original question was about the "fields are expensive, records are cheap"
statement. I have always taken the statement to refer to such factors as
development time to add new fields, and not about hardware and network
considerations. I missed that your original question was targeted to
physical considerations not specifically related to design.


Your comment: But all we have to go on is that you have 30 years
experience, from which it seems we are to accept that the design is beyond
question.

Response: I’ve re-read this entire series of comments and no where in there
did I say “you were accept that the design is beyond question”. I wish you
would point out where I said this.

You wrote:
Response: You are correct is that I did not describe my table structure.
However, if I read someone had 30 years in relational db design experience, I

would have thought that he or she knew about designing to 3rd normal form and

would not have questioned them.

That sounded to me like you were saying the design should not be questioned.

I wrote:
To use your specific example of insurance processing, auto
and home insurance are so different that many developers would use a
different table for the two rather than broaden an existing auto insurance
table to accommodate home
insurance.

Your response: You are so wrong.

No, I am correct that many developers would use separate tables. You can
(and do) argue that the approach is misguided, but it's my turn to point out
it is a different issue from what I raised, which was about the practice of
other developers.

All this time on
everyone’s part and NO ONE of the people who “are well-trained and very
experienced” answered the question! What a waste!

I will write this off as frustration, since you seem to have thanked others,
especially Allen, for their responses.

This closes my participation in this thread. Good luck with the project.

--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...esign/201002/1