|
Vern
At 04:54 PM 6/30/2004, you wrote:
> 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
-- This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
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.