On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 11:24:14AM -0700, Gary Traffanstedt wrote: > sql,query > > I have a table that has approximately 40 colums and all but 1 of > them I have been able to make fixed width. The sole hold out is of > the type "TEXT" and needs to be able to hold approximately 1000 > characters. The reason why I want it to be a fixed width field is > for speed and reliability. From what I have read, if a table has no > variable width fields, the database can access data faster.
Right. There's a lot less work involved in locating a random row. Since you know they're all the same size, it's a matter of multiplication. No need to check all the row headers. > Maybe you can answer a couple of questions for me. First, will > having all fixed-width fields make a noticeable difference? That depends. Can you benchmark it and see, using your real data? > Second, is there a field that is fixed-width that can handle > approximately 1,000 characters or is "TEXT" my only option? No. But you could use 4 CHAR(250) columns. Or try and compress the data to fit it into a 255 byte field (zlib, perhaps). Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/ MySQL 3.23.51: up 51 days, processed 1,092,346,376 queries (243/sec. avg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
