no - it can also be one byte if it's null (FF) :-)
"Keith Boulton" <kboulton_at_ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:zNq88.557$as2.105118_at_news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> and, of course, varchar2(1) is always 2 bytes.
>
> 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 Fri Feb 08 2002 - 02:05:48 CST
