Re: char(1) vs Number(1)
From: joel garry <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:58:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <c3b4ffe4-80c7-4d47-95da-2a388d568131_at_u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 30, 9:59 am, CrazyKarma <ska..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Quick check on whether char(1) is more efficient than number (1).
> Basically storing a bit value of either 0 or 1. since this is a
> numeric maybe its better to store this as number(1).
>
> Did a simple test for 1million rows, the IO cost is the same but the
> number of bytes is double with number(1).
> This makes me think that char(1) is more efficient in storage.
>
> any thoughts?
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:58:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <c3b4ffe4-80c7-4d47-95da-2a388d568131_at_u1g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
On Nov 30, 9:59 am, CrazyKarma <ska..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Quick check on whether char(1) is more efficient than number (1).
> Basically storing a bit value of either 0 or 1. since this is a
> numeric maybe its better to store this as number(1).
>
> Did a simple test for 1million rows, the IO cost is the same but the
> number of bytes is double with number(1).
> This makes me think that char(1) is more efficient in storage.
>
> any thoughts?
Yes, not having a boolean datatype is a bit of a frustration in Oracle. See http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:6263249199595
Oh wait, everything I know is wrong: http://download.oracle.com/docs/html/A95298_01/define3.htm
jg
-- _at_home.com is bogus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_You_Know_Is_WrongReceived on Mon Nov 30 2009 - 12:58:21 CST