On Oct 28, 2017, at 7:58 AM, mbsoftwaresoluti...@mbsoftwaresolutions.com wrote: > > I don't do that but I thought using varchar(n) fields were supposed to be > space-efficient in a sense that it just used a extra 1 or 2 bytes up front at > the head of the record to identify the true length? It's not really > allocating the space like a CHAR(n) field would...right?
Yes, it only uses the space needed for the value. Again, the primary concern isn't disk storage space, but indexing. If you have *any* variable-width columns in a table, the table no longer has fixed record length, so you lose the fixed offset for searching. The moral of the story is if you use VARCHAR anywhere in a table, you might as well make all string columns VARCHAR. -- Ed Leafe --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/signed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/pgp-signature --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/47693bc5-e2ef-4755-85af-b00c1e535...@leafe.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
