RE: Record Length

The wise-guy answer is "It depends."

It depends on several things including how you intend to use the file and
what sort of data is going in the file.  I don't think there's a hard and
fast answer. E.g. a long denormalized record is good for reporting, not so
good for transaction processing.  

###########################################
The above is my personal opinion and is not intended to represent good
programming practice or the product of a sound mind.

Joel Fritz 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Swaim [mailto:scott@qualitycorps.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 11:23 AM
> To: Midrange List
> Subject: Record Length
> 
> 
> Is it better to have a shorter record length and more records
> or a longer record length and less records?
> 
> ex:
> 
> Rcd length =   80       # of rcds = 10,000 OR
> Rcd length = 160       # of rcds = 5,000
> 
> Scott Swaim
> scott@qualitycorps.com
> 
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---