If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I was told "Fields are expensive, records are cheap"
Hi,
I just have a self education question. In response to one of my questions I stated that I added a lot of fields (a lot was 30 fields) to my table. The initial implementation was so successful, the user requested quite a few more enhancements resulting in the addition of 30 additional fields. One MVP who responded stated "Fields are expensive, records are cheap". I'm currious about his statement. I'm new to Access (less than a year) but I have over 30 years experience with relational databased on multiple platforms. I've always been taught the exact opposite - that "Fields are cheap, records are expensive" since going to disk is so slow versus accessing data in memory. Is there something different about Access where the statement "Fields are expense, records are cheap" is true. I'm using Access on local machine where the front and backs end reside on the same machine as well as having multiple front ends on each client's machine tied into the back end which resides on a file server. We have a hardwired ethernet cat5 cable network. Dennis |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|