nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam (Nuno Souto) wrote in message news:<3c612d82.10305271_at_news-vip.optusnet.com.au>...
> Morten doodled thusly:
>
> >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.
>
> I'd say the latter. Of course, if you store more data you have
> increased overhead, both space and I/O. But assuming small data,
> there should be no diff whatsoever other than constraining/modelling
> between say varchar2(500) and varchar2(4000).
>
> If you use PL/SQL, be careful. There used to be a limitation of
> PL/SQL varchar2 being only 2000 max. Dunno if removed in later
> versions.
>
>
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam
Numo, I believe you are thinking of the database limit for varchar2
columns prior to version 8, which was 2000 bytes. I am pretty sure
pl/sql has allowed a varchar2 datatype to be 32K since at least
version 2 if not all the way back to version 1.
Received on Thu Feb 07 2002 - 08:24:59 CST
