|
> That did not match what we were expecting to see at all. We thought > that using variable length fields would take up only as much storage as > they really need. Why then would a variable length file be *longer* > than a fixed length file. I would think that, given that variable length fields have a certain amount of overhead, you probably wouldn't realize any space saving until you have an awful lot more records in the file. Maybe as few as a few dozen, perhaps a few hundred, possibly a few thousand. But that's just a guess. -- JHHL
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.