BTW, I don't think 240 is a good substitute as the content is very
different than in the regular title. That's where you'll find music, laws,
selections, translations and it's totally littered with subfields. The 70.1
figure from the stripped 245 is probably closer to the mark

IMO, what you stand to gain in functionality, maintenance, and analysis is
much more interesting than potential space gains/losses.

kyle




On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Thanks, Roy (and others!)
>
> It looks like the 245 is including the $c - dang! I should have been more
> specific. I'm mainly interested in the title, which is $a $b -- I'm looking
> at the gains and losses of bytes should one implement FRBR. As a hedge,
> could I ask what've you got for the 240? that may be closer to reality.
>
> kc
>
>
> On 10/16/13 10:57 AM, Roy Tennant wrote:
>
>> I don't even have to fire it up. That's a statistic that we generate
>> quarterly (albeit via Hadoop). Here you go:
>>
>> 100 - 30.3
>> 245 - 103.1
>> 600 - 41
>> 610 - 48.8
>> 611 - 61.4
>> 630 - 40.8
>> 648 - 23.8
>> 650 - 35.1
>> 651 - 39.6
>> 653 - 33.3
>> 654 - 38.1
>> 655 - 22.5
>> 656 - 30.6
>> 657 - 27.4
>> 658 - 30.7
>> 662 - 41.7
>>
>> Roy
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Sean Hannan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>  That sounds like a request for Roy to fire up the ole OCLC Hadoop.
>>>
>>> -Sean
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/16/13 1:06 PM, "Karen Coyle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Anybody have data for the average length of specific MARC fields in some
>>>> reasonably representative database? I mainly need 100, 245, 6xx.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> kc
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Karen Coyle
>>>> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
>>>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>>>> skype: kcoylenet
>>>>
>>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>