Re: VARCHAR ( n )

On 22/11/16 13:27, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Axel Schwenke <axel.schwenke_at_gmx.de> writes:
>> it is good practice to always use
>> the smallest possible data type
>
> The problem is that there often is no precise
> upper limit for the length of some kind of data (texts).
>
> For example, a first name usually is no longer
> than 32 characters, but when one uses VARCHAR ( 32 ),
> it might happen that eventually someone with
> 33 characters in his first name comes along. So,
> one might use VARCHAR ( 33 ), but then someone
> with 34 characters might appear.
>
> (This might be related to the
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
>
> .)

Most philosophical 'issues' disappear under the impact of 'plain common sense' which understands that language is(nearly) always approximate.

If I pluck a whisker from my pet cat, is the whisker still part of e cat? Is the cat no longer a cat because it's lost a whisker?

Hair splitting.

Only relevant to those who think that a 'cat' really exists in some precise way, rather than as a loose label for an associated bunch of aural, visual, tactile and olfactory sensations that seem to occur concurrently.

Not really much to do with data definitions, except insofar as to highlight the fact that a 'word' or a 'name' is an equally loose term.

-- 
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace, 
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"