>3- We got a 25% memory/storage reduction by shrinking our field names. YMMV. I knew how data was stored, but I didn't know what amount we would specifically sa

>3- We got a 25% memory/storage reduction by shrinking our field names. YMMV. I knew how data was stored, but I didn't know what amount we would specifically save :P I really wish they just had an internal lookup table to do that. I don't want to have to deal with keys like "c1, ba, la" in my application.