>>>
>>>Einar,
>>>
>>>Try an image column instead.
>>
>>Hmmmmm I had to read up on it a little but it seems that it should work. Have you ever used an image column in this fashion before?
>>In the past couple of days I have been pondering if I should redesign my table (41 1Kb binary rows instead of 41 1Kb binary columns) or if I should utalize the new feature of SQL2005 where row size limit can exceed 8Kb. Now rereading your post I have another scenario to ponder.
>>
>>I think redesigning (I am at a very early stage of table design so it doesn't matter if I have to redesign) will be the best option (most flexible and fastest). Any thoughts on this?
>>
>>Einar
>
>Oh yeah. Re-design is the best approach. Image & text columns are a big performance drag. And having 41 similar columns - especially if any of them will be NULL for a time - is poor normalization.

The 41 columns (or now 41 rows) have the exact same structure (binary 1024). I will not allow any of them to be NULL. The reason I tried (or considdered) the first approach (with 41 columns) was to avoid having a header and a detail table, but I have changed my mind.

Thanks for your input.

Einar