2

So, I've been working on a Project where there is a very large volume of data that is kept and there is a relatively low amount of traffic, so it can afford more strain in terms of process/IO. I'd like to trade off some data-storage costs in exchange for processing costs.

There is an object that passes through multiple statuses which uses a little bit of different data at each step. If I use a process to transfer data from one record type to another, would it effectively cut down on data usage? In other words, does the overall record reserve data, while a record type only reserves a portion of that data?

Or is there some other stuff under the hood that makes this attempt moot?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

A record's storage use does not depend on the number of fields or the size of those fields (generally speaking, with exceptions for some "large" field types, such as Rich Text Area, which may also use data storage). Using record types will not affect the record's storage usage. This means that you can theoretically store megabytes worth of data in a record, yet only consume the standard 2KB. You may want to use record types in order to minimize the amount of visible data to just relevant values, but there's no point in doing so in order to "save space."

Improve this answer
2
  • and there are some objects that don't count for storage at all like Asset (!)
    – cropredy
    Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 0:03
  • @cropredy And others that are 1KB, 4KB, etc. I didn't feel like going too deep down that rabbit hole when all they needed was basic info.
    – sfdcfox ♦
    Commented Oct 29, 2019 at 0:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .