On 28 Jul 2002, at 17:56, Paul DuBois wrote:
At 14:34 -0700 7/28/02, Charlie wrote:
Is there any storage / performance penalty for specifying '' or 0 as
default values, as opposed to allowing null's in the table structure?
NULL values take less storage space. (One bit per NULL value in a
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 06:05:02PM -0400, Keith C. Ivey wrote:
On 28 Jul 2002, at 17:56, Paul DuBois wrote:
At 14:34 -0700 7/28/02, Charlie wrote:
Is there any storage / performance penalty for specifying '' or 0 as
default values, as opposed to allowing null's in the table structure?
Is there any storage / performance penalty for specifying '' or 0 as default
values, as opposed to allowing null's in the table structure?
sql, query
Thanks,
Charlie
-
Before posting, please check:
At 14:34 -0700 7/28/02, Charlie wrote:
Is there any storage / performance penalty for specifying '' or 0 as default
values, as opposed to allowing null's in the table structure?
NULL values take less storage space. (One bit per NULL value in a row,
if I remember correctly).
sql, query
