hello - the pedants are revolting!
koert54 <nospam_at_nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3c613794$0$7116$4d4efb8e_at_news.be.uu.net...
> > the length of the varchar2 column doesn't really matter.
> > Because all columns (including number types) are stored
> > in variable length format, there's no improvement in space
> > usage.
>
> Not all types are variable length - date types are always 7 bytes.
>
>
>
> "Andreas" <andreas.prusch_at_t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:c071e7da.0202060550.42ffe0d8_at_posting.google.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > the length of the varchar2 column doesn't really matter.
> > Because all columns (including number types) are stored
> > in variable length format, there's no improvement in space
> > usage.
> >
> > Best regards;
> > Andreas
> >
> > 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 - 16:38:03 CST
