Will ASP query be slow if field names are lengthy?

Discussion in 'ASP General' started by ynott, Dec 7, 2004.

  1. ynott

    ynott Guest

    I have an Access database with 58 fields in one table. I wrote many
    of the field names so that they were descriptive so that others could
    figure it out in the future. As an example, one field name is called
    MissingPart14990aDescribe.

    Should I be worried about the length of the field name? I'm expecting
    about 20,000 records a year to be entered into the database. So, five
    years from now, which would be about 100,000 records, will the
    query.asp for a list of records be slow due to field name size? BTW,
    the query.asp would just show a list of the last 3 months worth of
    records and only a snapshot of about 6 of the 58 fields.

    TIA
    ynott, Dec 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ynott

    Lasse Edsvik Guest

    ynott,

    Its a very bad idea to add extra columns just for description, Just create a
    readme.txt instead were you describe your tables. Else you'll end up with a
    really big database with unnecessary information.

    columns, not fields.....

    Never list more than 100 in a page...... use paging if needed...... and if
    your database is going to be that large you might consider using SQL Server
    instead.

    /Lasse




    "ynott" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have an Access database with 58 fields in one table. I wrote many
    > of the field names so that they were descriptive so that others could
    > figure it out in the future. As an example, one field name is called
    > MissingPart14990aDescribe.
    >
    > Should I be worried about the length of the field name? I'm expecting
    > about 20,000 records a year to be entered into the database. So, five
    > years from now, which would be about 100,000 records, will the
    > query.asp for a list of records be slow due to field name size? BTW,
    > the query.asp would just show a list of the last 3 months worth of
    > records and only a snapshot of about 6 of the 58 fields.
    >
    > TIA
    Lasse Edsvik, Dec 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ynott

    Evertjan. Guest

    Lasse Edsvik wrote on 07 dec 2004 in
    microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:

    > Its a very bad idea to add extra columns just for description, Just
    > create a readme.txt instead were you describe your tables. Else you'll
    > end up with a really big database with unnecessary information.
    >
    > columns, not fields.....
    >
    > Never list more than 100 in a page...... use paging if needed......
    > and if your database is going to be that large you might consider
    > using SQL Server instead.
    >
    > "ynott" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I have an Access database with 58 fields in one table. I wrote many
    >> of the field names so that they were descriptive so that others could
    >> figure it out in the future. As an example, one field name is called
    >> MissingPart14990aDescribe.
    >>
    >> Should I be worried about the length of the field name? I'm
    >> expecting about 20,000 records a year to be entered into the
    >> database. So, five years from now, which would be about 100,000
    >> records, will the query.asp for a list of records be slow due to
    >> field name size? BTW, the query.asp would just show a list of the
    >> last 3 months worth of records and only a snapshot of about 6 of the
    >> 58 fields.


    [This is what happens with topposting:

    ununderstandable answers, because you have to scroll down for the
    individual questions again and again.

    Please use interposting on usenet.]

    Records have fields, HTMLtables have rows and columns, Database tables
    are a random collection of records, and because of the randomness the
    records shouldn't be called rows.


    --
    Evertjan.
    The Netherlands.
    (Replace all crosses with dots in my emailaddress)
    Evertjan., Dec 7, 2004
    #3
  4. Evertjan. wrote:
    >
    > Records have fields, HTMLtables have rows and columns, Database tables
    > are a random collection of records, and because of the randomness the
    > records shouldn't be called rows.


    LOL
    Try running that statement by Joe Celko and see what happens.

    Bob Barrows
    PS. You've got it backwards Evertjan.
    --
    Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
    Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
    don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
    "NO SPAM"
    Bob Barrows [MVP], Dec 7, 2004
    #4
  5. ynott wrote:
    > I have an Access database with 58 fields in one table. I wrote many
    > of the field names so that they were descriptive so that others could
    > figure it out in the future. As an example, one field name is called
    > MissingPart14990aDescribe.
    >
    > Should I be worried about the length of the field name? I'm expecting
    > about 20,000 records a year to be entered into the database. So, five
    > years from now, which would be about 100,000 records, will the
    > query.asp for a list of records be slow due to field name size? BTW,
    > the query.asp would just show a list of the last 3 months worth of
    > records and only a snapshot of about 6 of the 58 fields.
    >
    > TIA



    No, the length of the field names should have nothing to do with the speed
    of a query. You are increasing the size of the metadata (the description of
    the data, technically: "data about data"), which will increase the amount of
    network traffic and the amount of resources used to create the recordset to
    contain this data. But this will not be dependant on the number of rows in
    your table, and with proper bandwidth and good programming techniques, will
    not be likely to cause any performance problems.

    I'm more concerned about the possibility of bad database design here. What
    is the meaning of the "14990a"? It makes it appear as if you are storing
    data in your metadata: never a good idea.

    Bob Barrows

    --
    Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
    Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
    don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
    "NO SPAM"
    Bob Barrows [MVP], Dec 7, 2004
    #5
  6. ynott

    Lasse Edsvik Guest

    Bob,

    LOL, agree....

    report him missing if he doesnt post any more on this newsgroup lol


    "Bob Barrows [MVP]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Evertjan. wrote:
    > >
    > > Records have fields, HTMLtables have rows and columns, Database tables
    > > are a random collection of records, and because of the randomness the
    > > records shouldn't be called rows.

    >
    > LOL
    > Try running that statement by Joe Celko and see what happens.
    >
    > Bob Barrows
    > PS. You've got it backwards Evertjan.
    > --
    > Microsoft MVP - ASP/ASP.NET
    > Please reply to the newsgroup. This email account is my spam trap so I
    > don't check it very often. If you must reply off-line, then remove the
    > "NO SPAM"
    >
    >
    Lasse Edsvik, Dec 7, 2004
    #6
  7. ynott

    Evertjan. Guest

    Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote on 07 dec 2004 in
    microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:

    > Bob Barrows
    > PS. You've got it backwards Evertjan.


    Bob, I am not going to play the "I am right, you are wrong" game.

    Evertjan.

    P.S.:
    I am right, as long as we are talking 4th generation datavases:

    The word "row" implies order. [btw: as do "columns"]
    If there are rows, there must be a front row and a back row.

    Records can be thrown into a container and can and will
    loose order in the process. The order should always be defined, like
    alphabetical, birthdate or geographical. There is no default order in a
    collection of records. [btw: as do "fields"]
    This order is only an apparent order, a view. There can be many views.

    Rows can be seen as ordered units of a stack,
    records as random units of a collection named database table.

    Columns can be seen as ordered units of a row,
    fields as random units of a collection named record.

    --
    Evertjan.
    The Netherlands.
    (Replace all crosses with dots in my emailaddress)
    Evertjan., Dec 7, 2004
    #7
  8. Evertjan. wrote:
    > Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote on 07 dec 2004 in
    > microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:
    >
    >> Bob Barrows
    >> PS. You've got it backwards Evertjan.

    >
    > Bob, I am not going to play the "I am right, you are wrong" game.
    >
    > Evertjan.
    >
    > P.S.:
    > I am right, as long as we are talking 4th generation datavases:


    LOL
    >


    I used "LOL" in my initial reply because I really don't care. I understand
    what's being talked about regardless of whether "row" or "record", or
    "column" or "field" is used. If you want to argue about this, go find Celko
    or Pascal on any of the innumerable newgroups that they frequent.

    Bob Barrows

    --
    Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
    Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
    header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
    quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.
    Bob Barrows [MVP], Dec 7, 2004
    #8
  9. ynott

    Mike Brind Guest

    Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote:
    > ynott wrote:
    >
    >>I have an Access database with 58 fields in one table. I wrote many
    >>of the field names so that they were descriptive so that others could
    >>figure it out in the future. As an example, one field name is called
    >>MissingPart14990aDescribe.
    >>
    >>Should I be worried about the length of the field name? I'm expecting
    >>about 20,000 records a year to be entered into the database. So, five
    >>years from now, which would be about 100,000 records, will the
    >>query.asp for a list of records be slow due to field name size? BTW,
    >>the query.asp would just show a list of the last 3 months worth of
    >>records and only a snapshot of about 6 of the 58 fields.
    >>
    >>TIA

    >
    >
    >
    > No, the length of the field names should have nothing to do with the speed
    > of a query. You are increasing the size of the metadata (the description of
    > the data, technically: "data about data"), which will increase the amount of
    > network traffic and the amount of resources used to create the recordset to
    > contain this data. But this will not be dependant on the number of rows in
    > your table, and with proper bandwidth and good programming techniques, will
    > not be likely to cause any performance problems.
    >
    > I'm more concerned about the possibility of bad database design here. What
    > is the meaning of the "14990a"? It makes it appear as if you are storing
    > data in your metadata: never a good idea.
    >
    > Bob Barrows
    >


    I agree. 58 fields in one table is not a good idea either. It suggests
    a lack of normalisation. How many other tables are there in the database?

    Mike Brind
    Mike Brind, Dec 7, 2004
    #9
  10. It is generally recommended that you do not use Jet in a multi-threaded
    production enviroment such as a web server. This is particularly important
    if you have a lot of records and users.

    Paul

    "Mike Brind" <mikebrind@[nospam]hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Kqntd.125630$...
    > Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote:
    > > ynott wrote:
    > >
    > >>I have an Access database with 58 fields in one table. I wrote many
    > >>of the field names so that they were descriptive so that others could
    > >>figure it out in the future. As an example, one field name is called
    > >>MissingPart14990aDescribe.
    > >>
    > >>Should I be worried about the length of the field name? I'm expecting
    > >>about 20,000 records a year to be entered into the database. So, five
    > >>years from now, which would be about 100,000 records, will the
    > >>query.asp for a list of records be slow due to field name size? BTW,
    > >>the query.asp would just show a list of the last 3 months worth of
    > >>records and only a snapshot of about 6 of the 58 fields.
    > >>
    > >>TIA

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > No, the length of the field names should have nothing to do with the

    speed
    > > of a query. You are increasing the size of the metadata (the description

    of
    > > the data, technically: "data about data"), which will increase the

    amount of
    > > network traffic and the amount of resources used to create the recordset

    to
    > > contain this data. But this will not be dependant on the number of rows

    in
    > > your table, and with proper bandwidth and good programming techniques,

    will
    > > not be likely to cause any performance problems.
    > >
    > > I'm more concerned about the possibility of bad database design here.

    What
    > > is the meaning of the "14990a"? It makes it appear as if you are storing
    > > data in your metadata: never a good idea.
    > >
    > > Bob Barrows
    > >

    >
    > I agree. 58 fields in one table is not a good idea either. It suggests
    > a lack of normalisation. How many other tables are there in the database?
    >
    > Mike Brind
    Paul Baker [MVP, Windows - SDK], Dec 7, 2004
    #10
  11. Maybe so, but it is done.Good programming practices (avoidance of dynamic
    sql, minimizing database connection duration, proper utilization of ADO
    objects, proper use of indexes, etc.) can make Jet much more scalable than
    it is commonly given credit for.

    Of course, a breaking point can be reached (the number of records really
    isn't relevant: it's the number of users that can kill you) where you need
    to switch to a server-based database to achieve scalability goals.

    Having said that, I will say that I prefer using SQL Server for many
    reasons.

    Bob Barrows

    Paul Baker [MVP, Windows - SDK] wrote:
    > It is generally recommended that you do not use Jet in a
    > multi-threaded production enviroment such as a web server. This is
    > particularly important if you have a lot of records and users.
    >
    > Paul
    >
    > "Mike Brind" <mikebrind@[nospam]hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:Kqntd.125630$...
    >> Bob Barrows [MVP] wrote:
    >>> ynott wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I have an Access database with 58 fields in one table. I wrote
    >>>> many of the field names so that they were descriptive so that
    >>>> others could figure it out in the future. As an example, one
    >>>> field name is called MissingPart14990aDescribe.
    >>>>
    >>>> Should I be worried about the length of the field name? I'm
    >>>> expecting about 20,000 records a year to be entered into the
    >>>> database. So, five years from now, which would be about 100,000
    >>>> records, will the query.asp for a list of records be slow due to
    >>>> field name size? BTW, the query.asp would just show a list of the
    >>>> last 3 months worth of records and only a snapshot of about 6 of
    >>>> the 58 fields.
    >>>>
    >>>> TIA
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> No, the length of the field names should have nothing to do with
    >>> the speed of a query. You are increasing the size of the metadata
    >>> (the description of the data, technically: "data about data"),
    >>> which will increase the amount of network traffic and the amount of
    >>> resources used to create the recordset to contain this data. But
    >>> this will not be dependant on the number of rows in your table, and
    >>> with proper bandwidth and good programming techniques, will not be
    >>> likely to cause any performance problems.
    >>>
    >>> I'm more concerned about the possibility of bad database design
    >>> here. What is the meaning of the "14990a"? It makes it appear as if
    >>> you are storing data in your metadata: never a good idea.
    >>>
    >>> Bob Barrows
    >>>

    >>
    >> I agree. 58 fields in one table is not a good idea either. It
    >> suggests
    >> a lack of normalisation. How many other tables are there in the
    >> database?
    >>
    >> Mike Brind


    --
    Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
    Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
    header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
    quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.
    Bob Barrows [MVP], Dec 7, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bob
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    381
    Lucas Tam
    Jul 30, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?RWQgQ2hpdQ==?=

    Navigation for a lengthy page

    =?Utf-8?B?RWQgQ2hpdQ==?=, Oct 29, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    374
    Jeffrey Palermo [MCP]
    Oct 30, 2004
  3. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    448
  4. Ken Varn
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    820
    Ken Varn
    Apr 28, 2005
  5. Sound
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    436
    Randy Webb
    Sep 28, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page