On 2017-10-28 09:45, Ed Leafe wrote:
On Oct 27, 2017, at 11:48 PM,
[email protected] wrote:
The OCD part of me wants to define the smallest type possible, whereas
the "let's set it and never worry about it" part of me says "just make
everything INT."
It's not just the size of the column in the row stored on the disk;
it's the size of any index it's part of, and the size of the memory
footprint for the column when filtering, sorting, etc. Generally I
don't obsess trying to make it as small as possible, but neither do I
just make everything huge so that I don't have to worry about it. Use
the sanest size (that's based on your experience being a DBA), and if
worse comes to worse, there's always ALTER TABLE. :)
Right...I couldn't care less about disk space b/c as I said, that's
basically never-ending for my needs. I was thinking for in-memory index
trees, mostly.
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
