> >>You don't consider a requirement that a field be no longer than a > >>certain length a reason not to use TEXT? > > Can't you just create a TEXT(255) field same as you can just create > VARCHAR (with no length) field? I think they're basically synonyms for > each other these days.
I'll defer to the SQL standard gurus on this, as well as to the internals guys, but I suspect there is a difference between the standard itself and implementor details, such as how char, varchar, varchar2 and text are implemented. As long as things work as specified, I don't think the standard cares much about what's happening behind the curtain. -- Mike Nolan ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
