Julio, I don't think 'variable structure' is necessarily the defining element. It's certainly good for that but now that we can search on these fields they're also good for situations where you want to allow each record to have some large number of fields most of which won't ever be used but need to be there. It's just sad to see a table in an old db with a hundred fields, 20 or so marked "unused" and only 5 or 6 of which are actually populated.
Perhaps this is what you are saying and I'm just reading too narrowly (it's been that sort of week). On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 1:49 AM, Julio Carneiro via 4D_Tech < 4d_tech@lists.4d.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 2017, at 4:21 AM, David Adams via 4D_Tech <4d_tech@lists.4d.com> > wrote: > > > > Does that all sound about right? Am I missing reasons why I would want to > > use object fields. vs. text fields? Any other technical details that > people > > have learned or figured out? > > I’d add that using an object field is only meaningful if your objects have > a variable structure, that is, objects differ among records not just by > contents but have a variable internal structure. > If all objects in all records share a common structure, that is, they all > have the same attributes (even if some are optional and may be empty/null), > then go with standard 4D fields. As you pointed out, they take a lot less > space, can be individually indexed/keyworded, are easier to deal with, > their usage is syntax checked by compiler, etc.. > -- Kirk Brooks San Francisco, CA ======================= *The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.* *- Edmund Burke* ********************************************************************** 4D Internet Users Group (4D iNUG) FAQ: http://lists.4d.com/faqnug.html Archive: http://lists.4d.com/archives.html Options: http://lists.4d.com/mailman/options/4d_tech Unsub: mailto:4d_tech-unsubscr...@lists.4d.com **********************************************************************
