Re: VARCHAR2 vs. CHAR

VARCHAR2 is efficient in storing strings. It holds 1 extra byte to indicate a column end and space is not taken for any string length less than the column size.

For example:

In a VARCHAR2(50) column the string 'ABCDE' would take up 6bytes whereas a CHAR(50) column would take up 51 bytes irrespective of the data.

The only reason you may want to use a CHAR column is if you are doing string literal comparisons where WHITESPACES (blanks) are an important consideration. Normally this is not the case.

Hope this has been of use to you.

Martyn Cavett
home: cavett_at_globalnet.co.uk
work: Martyn.Cavett_at_gtplc.com

Yudong Sun <ysun_at_econnect.ca> wrote in article <32948023.1CFB_at_econnect.ca>...
> How efficient is VARCHAR2's implementation?
> Would I have a reason to prefer the use of CHAR for things like
> a person name (e.g., CHAR(50))? (I would use VARCHAR2 for things
> like file path - e.g. VARCHAR2(256).)
>
> Thanks a lot,
>
> Yudong
>
  Received on Fri Nov 22 1996 - 00:00:00 CET