I'm converting my hyperlink fields to standard text fields. Since the
hyperlink field stores (part of) the info twice, like MyFile.doc
#C:\MyFile.doc#, I expected to save some memory. In my 20MB backend I have a
3 field table with a hyperlink field (about 10.000 records) and 2 ID fields.
After converting the hyperlinkfield to a text field (taking only the display
part), the backend is now 1,6 MB smaller. I can't imagine that it's only the
extra text the hyperlink fields stores. Is there some additional info stored
which made the backend smaller?

Thanks,
Martin

I'm guessing you also did a compact when you did the deletion, and you
hadn't done one for a while.

wrote in message
news:49923$4d9833db$5356be6c$3062 (AT) cache120 (DOT) multikabel.net...

I'm converting my hyperlink fields to standard text fields. Since the
hyperlink field stores (part of) the info twice, like MyFile.doc
#C:\MyFile.doc#, I expected to save some memory. In my 20MB backend I have a
3 field table with a hyperlink field (about 10.000 records) and 2 ID fields.
After converting the hyperlinkfield to a text field (taking only the display
part), the backend is now 1,6 MB smaller. I can't imagine that it's only the
extra text the hyperlink fields stores. Is there some additional info stored
which made the backend smaller?

Thanks,
Martin

Thanks, but that's not the case as this BE gets compacted everyday when the
first user logs in and the BE size gets logged, so I can precisely check the
size.

The hyperlinkfield wás indexed though along with an ID field and so is the
text field now with the same ID field. I'm guessing the extra text of the
hyperlink took a lot of extra storage room.

Martin

"Douglas J Steele" schreef in bericht news:in9pv5$sf$1 (AT) dont-email (DOT) me...

I'm guessing you also did a compact when you did the deletion, and you
hadn't done one for a while.

wrote in message
news:49923$4d9833db$5356be6c$3062 (AT) cache120 (DOT) multikabel.net...

I'm converting my hyperlink fields to standard text fields. Since the
hyperlink field stores (part of) the info twice, like MyFile.doc
#C:\MyFile.doc#, I expected to save some memory. In my 20MB backend I have a
3 field table with a hyperlink field (about 10.000 records) and 2 ID fields.
After converting the hyperlinkfield to a text field (taking only the display
part), the backend is now 1,6 MB smaller. I can't imagine that it's only the
extra text the hyperlink fields stores. Is there some additional info stored
which made the backend smaller?

Thanks,
Martin

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 15:38:51 +0200, <martin (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Ah, so you're surpised the BE is now 1.6 Mb smaller. You expected a
smaller decrease in size?

Hyperlink fields are stored similar to memo and OLE fields in that
each field with data becomnes a separate 4 kb page. (At a minimum.
Obviously a memo or OLE field could be larger as well as a hyperlink
field. Although that might be a rather long hyperlink. )

Thus I would expect 10K records at 4 Kb each to take 4 Mb in the old
format.

But then 10K records with 255 bytes each might take 255 Kb extra
space. Although that's not at all an accurate space calculation
because multiple records can fit in a 4 Kb page and thus many of those
now text fields might've fit in the current page without any problems.

But my WAG calculations are clearly wrong in some respect. I'm not
quite sure why but you get the idea. Did all 10K records have a
hyperlink or maybe only abuot 1.6/4 or about 40%?

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files
updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/

Yes. But I'm happy with it

I see. Since you don't need the double filenaming (with the # separator) if
you use a text field, that would save about 2 MB, which is not that far from
1,6 MB.

Thanks,
Martin


"Tony Toews" schreef in bericht
news:983ip6p35eoehndp87ce9d4buquchspd4n (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 15:38:51 +0200, <martin (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Ah, so you're surpised the BE is now 1.6 Mb smaller. You expected a
smaller decrease in size?

Hyperlink fields are stored similar to memo and OLE fields in that
each field with data becomnes a separate 4 kb page. (At a minimum.
Obviously a memo or OLE field could be larger as well as a hyperlink
field. Although that might be a rather long hyperlink. )

Thus I would expect 10K records at 4 Kb each to take 4 Mb in the old
format.

But then 10K records with 255 bytes each might take 255 Kb extra
space. Although that's not at all an accurate space calculation
because multiple records can fit in a 4 Kb page and thus many of those
now text fields might've fit in the current page without any problems.

But my WAG calculations are clearly wrong in some respect. I'm not
quite sure why but you get the idea. Did all 10K records have a
hyperlink or maybe only abuot 1.6/4 or about 40%?

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Tony's Main MS Access pages - http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
For a convenient utility to keep your users FEs and other files
updated see http://www.autofeupdater.com/