Ok daft question time lol - Default value or blank field?

[G1ZmO]

Ok this may be a very silly question but here goes

I have a lot of fields which are normally filled with the default value "N/A"
Would having these as blank fields decrease the database size?

<hides under the table from the laughter>

 

[DCrake]

Simple Software Solutions

Go to the top of the class.... Get down you fool!

When you create a text field and nominate its field length, say 10, then this is allocated irrespective if there is anything in it or not. To prove this create a new database with a field in a table that has values in it.

Remove the contents and compact then compare the size.

CodeMaster:

 

[KenHigg]

Yes. Would it make much of a difference? Depends on just how much data you have. The more important question I would have is what does your N/A mean? To me N/A means a data element is 'not applicable' to the record. This can be viewed as different to a null value which would imply that we simply don't know what the value is of the data element to the record.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[G1ZmO]

Ok DOH!

So CodeMaster, if I have field lengths which are longer than they need to be then I'm wasting space and making the db larger than it needs to be?

 

[DCrake]

Simple Software Solutions

Based on my experience of working with Access since version 4.3 I would say yes. I have access 2007 on my laptop but since reading about plenty of issues with it I have not used it up to now.

Each field type has a bit element to it and access adds up all the bits for each record to determine the overall pagesize.

 

[DCrake]

Simple Software Solutions

Just added a field to a table and populated the contents with values. Then I ran a compact. Nulled the contents of the field and ran another compact. There was no change in the size of the database.

David

 

[G1ZmO]

Thanks David,

I'll go through and check the field sizes for the whole db and see if it reduces the size

Ta,

Paul