But given that an SQL varchar field can hold considerably more than an
Access text field you might get away with using varchar instead. You also
have the bonus of being able to index varchar fields, something which you
can't do to text fields.
Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart McGowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 15:55
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: RE: SQL Server equivalent of Access memo
>
>
> From the book;
>
> text
>
> Variable-length non-Unicode data in the code page of the server and with a
> maximum length of 231-1 (2,147,483,647) characters. When the server code
> page uses double-byte characters, the storage is still
> 2,147,483,647 bytes.
> Depending on the character string, the storage size may be less than
> 2,147,483,647 bytes.
>
> Stew
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------
> Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
> or send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the body to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists or send a message
with 'unsubscribe' in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
