Re: Does VARCHAR2 size matter?

It does not make a difference as far as the database is concerned. But keep in mind that client applications or drivers (like JDBC) might allocate buffers of 4000 bytes in stead of 500 bytes, which may impact client memory consumption.

Regards,
Andre van Winssen

"James Antonie Rees" <tony_rees_at_dmcwave.com> wrote in message news:1012999648.5565.0.nnrp-07.d4f0f429_at_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 - 07:12:28 CST