Re: Why is VARCHAR2(4000) bad ?
From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:16:28 -0800
Message-ID: <1202231764.436601@bubbleator.drizzle.com>
>
> JMoo is talking about problems with other products like Toad or
> languages such as Pro*C. If those are considerations then, yes, you
> should design for it. I never said to arbitrarily use 4000 as the
> length.
> What I said was the presentation by Julian you cited talks about bind
> variable mismatch which does not support the argument that it is bad
> to use a varchar2 because it will use more memory, which is what you
> were trying to suggest. It is misinforming.
>
> Andrew
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:16:28 -0800
Message-ID: <1202231764.436601@bubbleator.drizzle.com>
Andrew M wrote:
> On Feb 4, 6:07 pm, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
>> Read what JMoo wrote: Yes it does! >>
>
> JMoo is talking about problems with other products like Toad or
> languages such as Pro*C. If those are considerations then, yes, you
> should design for it. I never said to arbitrarily use 4000 as the
> length.
> What I said was the presentation by Julian you cited talks about bind
> variable mismatch which does not support the argument that it is bad
> to use a varchar2 because it will use more memory, which is what you
> were trying to suggest. It is misinforming.
>
> Andrew
I know what you said. But you are incorrect.
Tables do not live in isolation: Databases are not black holes.
Connect to that schema using any tool, SQL*Plus, Crystal Reports, Oracle Forms, ODBC, even a well defined variable in a PL/SQL proc and you will find that you are incorrect.
-- Daniel A. Morgan Oracle Ace Director & Instructor University of Washington damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.orgReceived on Tue Feb 05 2008 - 11:16:28 CST