Re: Does VARCHAR2 size matter?

From: James Antonie Rees <tony_rees_at_dmcwave.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:45:31 -0000
Message-ID: <1012999648.5565.0.nnrp-07.d4f0f429@news.demon.co.uk>

I think that you have worked it out for yourself. If you need to restrict how much disk space then a smaller column would be better. For instance if you are needing to store a first name of someone then suggest varchar2(30) at most unless you know for a fact that someones first name is going to be larger than 30 characters lol

Hope this helps

regards

Tony Rees
ITD Hamilton
DMC Stratex Networks
Scotland

"Morten" <morten_at_kikobu.com> wrote in message news:3C6112F7.1070205_at_kikobu.com...
>
> Hi. What consequences are there when using VARCHAR2(4000) rather
> than eg. VARCHAR2(500) columns? I'm wondering as VARCHAR2 is variable
> length, if there are any major performance reasons to keep the
> fields as small as possible, or if those reasons are more likely to
> be from a constraining/modelling perspective.
>
> Morten
>
>
>
Received on Wed Feb 06 2002 - 06:45:31 CST