Re: How Much Space Is Wasted In Unused Fields In SQL Server? - Database Discussion Boards

Great info, as usual! Thanks! Big Grin | :-D

I think I'll skip the attributes and leave the empty fields; none will be used for foreign keys, in any case. The VARCHAR thing I didn't know, but it makes sense to me.

Will Rogers never met me.

When faced with a problem like this, I figure out what the largest record is for both character and numeric data (usually splitting the latter into integer and double). I then build a table with sufficient fields to handle the most complex of data, such that there is a field for every data item in each category, plus a field for item type.

These columns are then labelled as Text01...Textnn, Int01...Intnn and so on. Any text field that needs to be larger than 8 bytes is a VARCHAR, and is populated, by default, with a single space, not left at NULL. No columns permit NULL.

I then build a second table, with the same number of columns, but all CHAR, containing the column headers for each item type, with a one-to-many relationship to the item type in the main table. Each column name in the second table matches the corresponding column name in the main table. Each data item in the second table contains the 'friendly' name for the column in the main table, depending on the item type.

The SQL becomes somewhat more complex, but it is the most space-efficient method I have found to date, and there are (IMHO) considerable advantages in saving the entire inventory in a single table.

Using one table for the entire inventory makes sense only for the master records; details I'll stick into separate tables for different classes of equipment. It makes no sense for bolts to use the same table structure as transformers. Your technique sounds like it would be very hard to keep track of the items in the main table, should a change ever be required. It's interesting, though. Thanks! Big Grin | :-D

Will Rogers never met me.

Yes, I guess you have a wider range of complexity in your items. The last time I used this process was for a large spare parts distributor, and the reason I used this approach is that the stock descriptions could be of very variable lengths. If a new part category came into stock, and I needed some extra fields for it, I always had spare ones.

The grids on the project forms would hide any empty columns (all spaces). The project relied heavily on datasets, but this approach meant that regardless of the number of columns required for an item, the datasets never had to be rebuilt because of a schema change.

Roger Wright wrote:
But if 90% of the transformers in use have 40% of their data fields set to null,
will they still consume the same storage space as they would if all fields
contained data?

Don't know, but it'd be more logical to have the extra data in a separate table that you link to.

Transformer
Number
EntryDate
etc..

TransformerData
Number
Memo

Roger Wright wrote:
I really hate wasted space

Databases aren't optimized to use the minimum in space, but to deliver the data in a speedy way and guarantee integrity.

If you want to have a small-sized database, you'd only put the references in there and keep your memo's in a separate (compressed) file. That way the database won't include the memo's when reserving space. Databases don't reclaim the space when you delete a record; hence the suggestion to save your data outside the database.

Would also mean that you lose a part of the functionality.

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

Good points. Thanks! Big Grin | :-D

Will Rogers never met me.

My pleasure Smile | :)

Roger Wright wrote:
rom a coding standpoint, a single master Transformer table is far easier to manage, and is the approach I'd prefer to follow. But if 90% of the transformers in use have 40% of their data fields set to null, will they still consume the same storage space as they would if all fields contained data?

Say you have 1000 columns for transformers and 900 of them are empty thus can be null.
Also say that a null takes one byte (could take less but one byte is possible.)
The other 100 columns take an average of 1000 bytes which is only 10 bytes per column.

So a record takes 1900 bytes and lets add 100 bytes for overhead (which is way high but makes the math easier.)

So a total of 2000 bytes per record.

TigerDirect (just an example) has an external 2 Terabyte drive for $120 and you need 3 (1 main, 1 failover, 1 backup). So $360

You will be able to store one billion transformers on that drive (one of them.)

Do you have one billion transformers?

And of course if the nulls take no space then you can store even more.
(Note that one design trick which I would suspect might not be relevant but could be is that you put null columns at the end of the table schema. Then it is more likely the database will drop them so no space.)

Roger Wright wrote:
I'll have to manage a dozen or more different tables,

Far as I am concerned you don't have a space problem. You do however have a management problem.

Now if you ONLY need to manage inventory then you should use a meta data design.

The idea in this case is simple. Following tables/columns are examples, variations, are driven by actual requirements. Following are table descriptions.
item: item_id, inventory_number, item_name
property_type: property_type_id, name, description, units
Property: property_id, item_id, property_type_id, the_value

Thus for a pad mounted 24kv transformer the data would look like the following
item: 1, 'tns001', 'big blue transformer'

property_type: 1, 'mount', 'transformer mount', null
property_type: 2, 'volts', 'volts', 'volt'

Property: 1, 1, 1, 'pad'
Property: 2, 1, 2, '24000'

There are many possible variations on the above.

That's really along the path I want to go. I use lookup tables to associate human readable data with numeric identifiers, then code the actual data using the identifiers to conserve space. I also plan to use a few boolean identifiers to control visual elements by turning on and off the displays for controls that are only used for some items. If something new is required, I only have to add a couple of records to the lookup tables.

Will Rogers never met me.

Roger Wright wrote:
visual elements

Text display from the database. Make sure those have their own column.

Hi all,

Can anybody help me in the following issue.

I have a course table contains coursename and type

I want to select course name and type and the display should like

Coursename(type)

th problem is my type values are integers..
For example 1 for Regular type ,2 for distance type
so if type is 1 and coursename is MCA
Output should be

MCA(Regular)

is it possiblle thru the sql statement

Thanks in advance,
Reena

I guess you have to have linked table for type of course,

Here is example how it should be

select 
case when [type]=1 then 'MCA' when [type]=2 then 'Another Title' end + ' (' +
coursename +')' as TypeAndCourse
from courses

I Love T-SQL
"VB.NET is developed with C#.NET"
If my post helps you kindly save my time by voting my post.

Blue_Boy wrote:
select
case when [type]=1 then 'MCA' when [type]=2 then 'Another Title' end + ' (' +
coursename +')' as TypeAndCourse
from courses

just little changes

SQL

SELECT [Coursename] + '(' + case when [type] = 1 THEN 'Regular' when [type]=2 then 'Another Title' end + ')' as TypeAndCourse
from courses

but i am agree with "Mycroft Holmes" suggestion of creating new table..

Where can we go to find God if we cannot see Him in our own hearts and in every living being
-Swami Vivekananda

Create a table of CourseTypes with a PK field and a description.
This is then an extensible solution if you need to add another type.
Create a view with an inner join (assumes the type is required in the course table and that a course can only have 1 type) to the type table and include the course type description field (I name the view vwCourse)

Or just do it the way the Blue one suggested!

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH

Try this

Declare @Course table ([Course Name] Varchar(100),[Course Type] Int)
Insert Into @Course
	Select 'MCA',1 Union All
	Select 'MCA',2

;With CTE AS(
	Select [Course Type] = 1,[Course Description] = 'Regular' Union All
	Select [Course Type] = 2,[Course Description] = 'Distance'
)

Select 
		Result = 
		c.[Course Name] 
		+ '('
		+ CTE.[Course Description]
		+ ')'
From @Course c
Join CTE ON c.[Course Type] = CTE.[Course Type]

If you are using Denali CTP 3, you can use the new Choose function

Select
	Result = 
			Concat(
					c.[Course Name] 
					,'('
					,CTE.[Course Description]
					,')'
				  )
From @Course c
Join CTE ON c.[Course Type] = CTE.[Course Type]

Output

Result
MCA(Regular)
MCA(Distance)

Niladri Biswas

Hi,
i am new to DB2, i have certain db2 commands like "Create Database", "connect to database".

These commands i am executing in db2 script file say ex: "script.db2" file.
what is the command to quit the command line processor window.

When i open the Command line processor window, and i enterered the "exit" commmand manually it works fine.

But the same i given in my script.db2 file, its not working... what could be the problem..

Please help me to resolve this.

Thanks,
Mani

http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/db2luw/v8/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.db2.udb.doc/core/r0002036.htm[^]

i got solution from this site.

Hi,
How to write isnull(exp1,exp2) in the where condition of linq.

eg;

SQL:
... where userpk = isnull(@userpk,userpk)
i need to convert the above query to linq

Thankyou,
Yesuprakash

http://forums.asp.net/t/1329095.aspx/1[^]

My advice is free, and you may get what you paid for.

This may help

where 
       !string.IsNullOrEmpty(record.Field<string>("userpk")) 
       ? record.Field<string>("userpk") 
       : null

Niladri Biswas

Hi,
I am BE final year student. I am doing project using data warehouse. It is review analysis of automobiles. Can anybody give me feedback of this, how is the project at final year level?
Also if i get some links regarding review analysis i will e grateful.

Thank you.

I have an x64 Server Running SQL Server 08 and within that server I am setting up a linked server to an XP box running SQL express 05. I am setting up the linked server with a server name of "ComputerName\SQLEXPRESS", using the Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server. It connects fine and passes a connection test, but when i write a simple select query to get all records from the linked server table it returns no records when there are multiple records in the table I have queried. Any one ever seen this before? It should be noted that when I try to add the linked server and keep the radio button selected for sql server it will not connect giving me an error message

VIA Provider: The specified module could not be found.

OLE DB provider: SQLNCLI10 for linked server returned message login timeout expired.

OLE DB Provider for linked server returned message a network related or instance specific error has occured while establishing.....

I am at a loss? Mad | :mad:

Member 8003276 wrote:
a network related or instance specific error has occured

That's a general message, and there can be many reasons why it can't connect. Try using an IP-address to identify the computer.

Is Sql configured to use TCP/IP or use named pipes?

Did you install all the service-packs?

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

HI error under

error 1045 - access denied for user 'root' '@localhost'(using password : no)

php my admin tried to connect to the MYSQL server and the server rejected the connection .you should the check the host, user name and password in your configuration and make sure that they correspond to the information given by the administrator of the MYSQL server.

What is the question ?