Re: Does VARCHAR2 size matter?

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 12:45:31 -0000, "James Antonie Rees" <tony_rees_at_dmcwave.com> wrote:

>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

This has nothing to do withthe Hard Disk Space...

But it is always better to size the columns in a proper way .. What will you do if someone is using the table on a form or something .. how big will he shpow that field unless you are not resticting it ....

>
>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
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Additions and Corrections Always Welcome.] Best Regards,
Ganesh R Received on Wed Feb 06 2002 - 08:09:33 CST