More overhead using MEMO vs. TEXT datatype?

[Boulder_dude]

We currently have a field in an Access 2002 db that is a TEXT datatype. This
stores formulas used in an Excel spreadsheet. We need more characters, so I
want to upsize this to a MEMO datatype.

I read someplace that there are inherent space tradeoffs when using MEMO
datatype. Is there really a memory hit that is significant? I'm hoping not.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Jody]

I build in a "Comments" Memo field on just about every database I build. The
largest (and oldest) one I have built thus far has been in use since February
2004 and is just over 100 meg in size (which is over 75,000 records). I
would say that upsizing to a Memo field in your case wouldn't have any
noticable effects.

 

[Jerry Whittle]

I don't think that space is a real issue; however, I avoid Memo fields unless
really needed.

1. Don't be surprised to find certain queries and exports only show the
first 255 characters of the memo field anyway. You can search these
disscussion groups to see why and the work-arounds.

2. Certain things like sorting and grouping don't work with memo fields.

3. Memo fields are much more likely to corrupt than text fields. If you
don't already, make sure that you backup databases with memo fields often.

 

[Guest]

Yes, there is more overhead using MEMO datatypes.
Think of it as being kind of like putting your text fields in a separate
table. Now you have to join two tables to see the text field.

But when did you ever notice the overhead of joining two
tables? I do that all the time, and that's not overhead, that's
just the normal cost of using a database system.

(david)