Finding the number of bytes per record

[mark_aok]

Hi all,

I'm typing up a report for a database, and in this massive design
manual that I'm writing, I'd like to indicate the number of bytes of a
typical record in each table. And I was wondering what the easiest
way to do this is.

I understand that Access uses a variable amount of storage per field
(i.e a 1 charcter string, and a 255 character string use different
amounts of memory, even if they have the same maximum characters). So
this will be difficult, anyone have any suggestions?

Mark

[Tom van Stiphout]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:51:55 -0000, mark_aok <ma******@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Well, you wrote that you wanted the number of bytes of a TYPICAL
record, so it doesn't matter that some have fewer bytes than others.

SQL Server Books Online always had an article about the size of a
record. Most of it applies to Access as well. For example don't forget
to include the size of the indexes on that table, or unicode data.

Personally I think this information is virtually useless. What is the
user to do with this statement? Better would be to say that Access
(better: Jet) can hold up to 2GB of data and that client should
consider another DBMS well before that hard limit is reached.

-Tom.

>Hi all,

I'm typing up a report for a database, and in this massive design
manual that I'm writing, I'd like to indicate the number of bytes of a
typical record in each table. And I was wondering what the easiest
way to do this is.

I understand that Access uses a variable amount of storage per field
(i.e a 1 charcter string, and a 255 character string use different
amounts of memory, even if they have the same maximum characters). So
this will be difficult, anyone have any suggestions?

Mark

[CDMAPoster]

On Jul 25, 10:31 am, Tom van Stiphout <[e-mail]:

Well, you wrote that you wanted the number of bytes of a TYPICAL
record, so it doesn't matter that some have fewer bytes than others.

SQL Server Books Online always had an article about the size of a
record. Most of it applies to Access as well. For example don't forget
to include the size of the indexes on that table, or unicode data.

Personally I think this information is virtually useless. What is the
user to do with this statement? Better would be to say that Access
(better: Jet) can hold up to 2GB of data and that client should
consider another DBMS well before that hard limit is reached.

-Tom.

I don't agree that the information is useless. Maybe you're seeing
something I don't.

See:

http://groups.google.com/group/micro...244c336e276360

James A. Fortune
CD********@FortuneJames.com