I would drop the indices and use option 2 to rename the fields to drop them after operations demonstrates that they are useless. The reduction in record size would be well worth it.
----------------------------- Michael Oke, II okeind@gmail.com 661-349-6221 -----------------------------
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 12:45 PM MB Software Solutions, LLC < mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com> wrote:
The main table in your inherited legacy application has 243 fields. Through looking at the database columns individually, you have determined that only 139 of those are used. (really!) They're of mixed types (characters, numbers, logicals, date/time, etc.). Getting rid of them takes you from a record size of 3093 down to 1982. In one instance, testing showed it reduced the size of the DBF by 1/3! Some of those unused fields have indexes on them. Let's assume I dropped the indexes on those fields.
Do you:
- do nothing...leave them as-is.
- rename them to "X<fieldname>" so that you can basically mark them useless (to be later dropped) but have the ability to rename back to original if the app hits a snag showing a dependence on that useless field.
- do something else I haven't considered? (Dropping them immediately is not an option as it's too radical/nuclear and offers no failsafe at time of change)
tia, --Mike
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html
[excessive quoting removed by server]