Binary fields efficiency

Hi there,
I have a record where associated with it are upto 1000 floating point
values, would it be more efficient to have a variable sized binary field to
hold an array of floating point values, or is it fine to create another tabl
e
to hold these floating points required of the records. I'll have thousands
of the records, although they wont be accessed often - ie, once during an
import.
Thanks
K.Create the table. You are using a Relational database, which works
really well when the data is structured relationally. Use the
relational approach and you probably won't have to ask for help here
very often. Use the non-relational approach and you will generally
get a lot of heartburn when SQL Server doesn't have the tools to work
with the data. And when you end up asking for help here, you will
mostly get criticism of your database design!
So create the table. SQL Server handles thousands of rows very
efficiently, and the SQL you will need to manipulate them will be
clear and straightforward.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 02:45:28 -0800, "Katie Viola"
<KatieViola@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi there,
>I have a record where associated with it are upto 1000 floating point
>values, would it be more efficient to have a variable sized binary field t
o
>hold an array of floating point values, or is it fine to create another tab
le
>to hold these floating points required of the records. I'll have thousands
>of the records, although they wont be accessed often - ie, once during an
>import.
>Thanks
>K.