On 14-11-2019 17:06, blackfalconsoftw...@outlook.com [firebird-support]
wrote:
> What do you mean I am wrong? I have merely re-iterated how all database
> engines I have worked operate.
Telling us how other engines work is not very relevant when discussing
Firebird, and when the **internal
14.11.2019 17:06, blackfalconsoftw...@outlook.com [firebird-support] wrote:
> What do you mean I am wrong? I have merely re-iterated how all database
> engines I have
> worked operate.
How "all database engines operate" is irrelevant here. You are wrong in your
assumption
how Firebird
What do you mean I am wrong? I have merely re-iterated how all database
engines I have worked operate.
And what you are saying is that a CHAR field in Firebird acts in the same
manner as that of a VARCHAR field. If that were the case there would be no
difference in how they are used and
On 2019-11-13 15:51, blackfalconsoftw...@outlook.com [firebird-support]
wrote:
> Thank you Anne, for your succinct comments regarding the differences
> between the efficiencies of a CHAR and VARCHAR field definitions.
>
> Human observation cannot actually elicit any observable effects
> between
14.11.2019 03:40, Richard Damon rich...@damon-family.org [firebird-support]
wrote:
> By the SQL standard, there are some noticeable effects. CHAR is defined
> as a fixed width, so data is padded with blanks to reach that width, and
> then the blanks are removed on retrieval.
>
> Firebird might
On 11/13/19 9:51 AM, blackfalconsoftw...@outlook.com [firebird-support]
wrote:
>
> Thank you Anne, for your succinct comments regarding the differences
> between the efficiencies of a CHAR and VARCHAR field definitions.
>
> Human observation cannot actually elicit any observable effects
>
> On Nov 13, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Dimitry Sibiryakov s...@ibphoenix.com
> [firebird-support] wrote:
>
> 13.11.2019 15:51, blackfalconsoftw...@outlook.com [firebird-support] wrote:
>> However, internally, the CHAR field definition is more efficient as the
>> database does not
>> have to
13.11.2019 15:51, blackfalconsoftw...@outlook.com [firebird-support] wrote:
> However, internally, the CHAR field definition is more efficient as the
> database does not
> have to perform any field size calculations at the moment that data is being
> updated to a
> VARCHAR field.
No such
Thank you Anne, for your succinct comments regarding the differences between
the efficiencies of a CHAR and VARCHAR field definitions.
Human observation cannot actually elicit any observable effects between the
two.
However, internally, the CHAR field definition is more efficient as
13.11.2019 15:07, Clyde Eisenbeis cte...@gmail.com [firebird-support] wrote:
> Assume I have two fields => "stFixed CHAR(10)" and "stVar VARCHAR(8191)
> CHARACTER SET
> UTF8" --- what is the optimum pageSize?
As big as possible for your Firebird version.
--
WBR, SD.
Thanks for the useful responses!
Assume I have two fields => "stFixed CHAR(10)" and "stVar VARCHAR(8191)
CHARACTER SET UTF8" --- what is the optimum pageSize?
```
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 6:17 AM Ann Harrison aharri...@ibphoenix.com
[firebird-support] wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > On
> On Nov 12, 2019, at 10:44 PM, Richard Damon rich...@damon-family.org
> [firebird-support] wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/19 12:38 PM, cte...@gmail.com [firebird-support] wrote:
>>
>>
>> What are the trade-offs of CHAR vs. VARCHAR? I know that VARCHAR
>> consumes less space. Anything thing else
On 2019-11-12 23:06, Clyde Eisenbeis cte...@gmail.com [firebird-support]
wrote:
> As I understand, the FbConnection.CreateDatabase max pageSize for
> VARCHAR is 8191. Does the page size change to less than 8191 if the
> VARCHAR is less?
>
> What is the max pageSize for CHAR?
Page size is about
On 11/12/19 12:38 PM, cte...@gmail.com [firebird-support] wrote:
>
>
> What are the trade-offs of CHAR vs. VARCHAR? I know that VARCHAR
> consumes less space. Anything thing else (are VARCHAR searches slower)?
>
In some implementations of SQL (I don't know if firebird is one of
them), a row
12.11.2019 23:06, Clyde Eisenbeis cte...@gmail.com [firebird-support] wrote:
> As I understand, the FbConnection.CreateDatabase max pageSize for VARCHAR is
> 8191. Does
> the page size change to less than 8191 if the VARCHAR is less?
Database page size has no relation with any data type
As I understand, the FbConnection.CreateDatabase max pageSize for VARCHAR
is 8191. Does the page size change to less than 8191 if the VARCHAR is
less?
What is the max pageSize for CHAR?
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:15 PM Dimitry Sibiryakov s...@ibphoenix.com
[firebird-support]
12.11.2019 18:38, cte...@gmail.com [firebird-support] wrote:
> I know that VARCHAR consumes less space.
It doesn't. CHAR has no advantages over VARCHAR in most usages. Only very
little cases
need fixed length data (and usually it is binary data).
--
WBR, SD.
What are the trade-offs of CHAR vs. VARCHAR? I know that VARCHAR consumes less
space. Anything thing else (are VARCHAR searches slower)?
18 matches
Mail list logo
