Re: Help, my developers are killing me with varchar2(4000)

From: Noons <>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 02:39:01 +1000
Message-ID: <g84bf0$nm2$>

joel garry wrote,on my timestamp of 16/08/2008 2:28 AM:

>> IOW: the bind variable might not store data very efficiently
>> but the column in the table doesn't stop having its max
>> size checked because of that?

> The OP asked if it is a bad idea to design tables with everything 4000
> long varchar2's, so part of the answer is going to involve what
> happens when you move the data out of the db and manipulate it. Does
> the size definition make a difference in how Oracle deals with the
> data? Yes, it does. Is it a big deal? Well, to answer that, you
> have to define what a big deal is.

Yeah, good point. It might even have an impact of SQL optimisation: if all varchar2 is 4000, cbo might try to "guess" rows will be large.

> Whatever definition you come up with, if you start investigating what
> happens under high load, it becomes a big deal. That's where most of
> these developers that create generalized solutions fall short, since
> they assume you can always throw more hardware at it and it will
> magically scale, without specifying an upper limit requirement.
> Right?

LOL! How true... Received on Fri Aug 15 2008 - 11:39:01 CDT

Original text of this message