Hi,

I have a couple of questions

If SQL2005 will only use as much of a varchar as necessary, should you ask
developers to limit the size of a varchar if they will definitely not use
more than 8k.

On the same subject. If a the maximum width is more than 8k, but only 1/3
of the columns in each row will be populated at one time in the table,
should you insist for the table to be broken down from 300+ columns into a
more logical design. My developers are claiming this will lead to slower
query times as they currently have views spanning 2 300+ column tables and
claim more joins to smaller tables will serious degrade performance.

can anyone suggest reasons why i should insist upon these tables being
normalised. files will be uploaded to these tables on an adhoc basis
through the day and then uses will only select from these tables.



Core – DBA
Threadneedle Investments
DDI:      +44 (0)207 464 5446
Email:   chris.wood-[Email address protected]

CONFIDENTIALITY: The information in this e-mail and any attachment is confidential.
It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If you are not a named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not read, use, copy or disseminate this information.

CONDITIONS: Any offer contained within this communication is subject to contract and formal approval by the legal entity giving the offer.

Threadneedle Asset Management Limited (Entered on the FSA Register - FSA Number 122194), Threadneedle Investment Services Limited (FSA Number 190437), Threadneedle Pensions Limited (FSA Number 110337), Threadneedle Portfolio Services Limited (FSA Number 119174),Threadneedle International Limited (FSA Number 143014), Threadneedle Unit Trust Manager Limited (FSA Number119219) and Threadneedle Navigator ISA Manager Limited (FSA Number 188889). Authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority - www.fsa.gov.uk/register/. Registered Address: 60 St Mary Axe, London EC3A 8JQ.


MS Sql Server LazyDBA home page