Hi Jim,

>>Sounds like your "business" is stagnant :) How about accounting for the hope that our imaginary business grows at good clip...then this "stable number" is not possible...we hire more employees, do more edits, etc...
>
>No, it isn't. You will hire more employees but you will also lose some too. You will get new customers but again you will also lose some too. This concept is not taken from teh sky, there is a large body of statistical studies that indicate that this is true for all tables. They will reach a size where they then begin to hover, not growing or shrinking by any significant amount.
>

Sure, that may be true in a long-established business. But it could be years for a startup that hopes to "grow at a good clip".


>>Yes, this is what I'm referring to...a complete refreshing of the table, not just moving out the deleted ones.
>
>Reorganizing the table is always a good idea for optimization, altering it size is not.

Since a reorganize "in place" is not likely, this is next to impossible. And I cannot fathom why changing the size is of any particular consequence anyways. If it is for fear of fragmentation (and allowing that fragmentation is bad, which is something I happen to disagree with) then one has no real way (that I have found) to know for sure that a table is fragmented anyway, so a defrag is the only certain way to be sure. Am I missing something on that score???

regards,

jim N