February 4, 2011 at 9:47 am
I know this could be stupid to ask for most of you but Lets say
for example i have a column in a table(A) as FirstName varchar(256)
but i think that may be varchar(64) could be enough for a firstname column.
My Question is that most of us compare char vs varchar.
Does Varchar(256) vs Varchar(64) has to do anything with performance or storage.
(not specific about the length 256 or 64 but in general lenght)
February 4, 2011 at 10:45 am
With the way that varchar data is stored, there really isn't any significant different between those two, in terms of storage, performance, et al.
There is a difference between char and varchar, at just about any size other than 1, but not really between one large number for varchar and another.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 1 (of 1 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply