March 15, 2004 at 1:52 pm
Should there a peformance hit associated with making columns larger than they need to be? And if so, why and under what conditions? What about index efficiency?
I am looking at an application that has compact PKs and FKs, but has several fields that are nvarchar(4000). No current indexes on these fields; app is highly write intensive and is having performance problems at times. I created a test database with current table strucutre and another test database with tables sized appropriately. I then ran sql code associated with application on both databases and didnot notice any discernable difference in CPU utilization or I/O, which kinda of suprised me.
Any insights appreciated.
March 15, 2004 at 5:45 pm
Theoretically, the smaller key fields the better. SQL Server manages data in page, which is around 8k size, the smaller the key fields, the more fit in a page, the less I/O.
March 16, 2004 at 5:45 pm
Other than creating large dynamic statements, why would you need a Nvarchar(4000)?
SQL supports (image & text) types which are much more effient in storage&recall..
Coach James
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply