Thank you all for your advice. I switched back to CHAR(1) NOT NULL and the
size of my database did indeed drop again.
Ian
>From: Bryan Pendleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I believe the CHAR(1) NOT NULL columns will be simpler and slightly
>more efficient for the database to handle. NULL processing is
>complex and adds both space and time overheads; for a column which
>is boolean true/false my preference would be the CHAR(1) NOT NULL
>implementation.
>
>
>On Jun 3, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Peter Ondruska wrote:
>
>> CHAR(1) will be same size no matter what value it holds.
>
>But if you allow nulls, then the database has to store the null/not
>null flag somewhere, thereby increasing the size of the data.
>
>Craig
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca
