From what I remember all varchars have an overhead so varchar(1) is not
as good as char(1) but that said I alsways use varchar as it seems to be
last problematic (don't ask why it is purely a feeling I have).
--
Michael Hawksworth
Visual Fox Solutions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.foxpro.co.uk
MB Software Solutions wrote:
Rick Schummer wrote:
Heh, I didn't say I designed it. I cannot take any credit for
anything = you are seeing with varchar involved. g
but varchar is a *good* thing, isn't it? Oh wait...are you saying
it's better optimized as fixed length chars? Do
At 12:27 AM 8/15/2006 -0400, MB Software Solutions wrote:
Heh, I didn't say I designed it. I cannot take any credit for anything =
you are seeing with varchar involved. g
but varchar is a *good* thing, isn't it? Oh wait...are you saying it's
better optimized as fixed length chars? Do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:27 AM 8/15/2006 -0400, MB Software Solutions wrote:
Heh, I didn't say I designed it. I cannot take any credit for
anything = you are seeing with varchar involved. g
but varchar is a *good* thing, isn't it? Oh wait...are you saying
it's better optimized as
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [NF] Varchar(1) ???
Rick Schummer wrote:
Heh, I didn't say I designed it. I cannot take any credit for anything
= you are seeing with varchar involved. g
but varchar is a *good* thing, isn't it? Oh wait...are you saying it's better
optimized
as fixed length
*If* I remember I use char(1)'s in my [non-fox] databases - that uses 1
byte as against +- 2 1/2 bytes for a varchar(1)
but wtf - I haven't worried about a few bytes per record since mainframe
days. Then (and now if it bothers you) we used a *bit* for most of the
stuff that is now in [v]char(1)'s
At 07:32 AM 8/15/2006 -0500, Stephen the Cook wrote:
Heh, I didn't say I designed it. I cannot take any credit for
anything = you are seeing with varchar involved. g
but varchar is a *good* thing, isn't it? Oh wait...are you saying
it's better optimized as fixed length chars? Do elaborate.
On 8/15/06, Rick Schummer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Varchar is a very good thing when used for columns that vary drastically, or
have data
occasionally needing more space than common for the column. If I have data like
postal
code I know is always 5 or 6 characters I would make this Char. If I
[SQL Server 2000]
Why would someone do a varchar(1).it's no different in terms of
space-saving optimization that char(1), right? Just found this to be odd.
--
Thanks,
--Michael
___
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance:
From: Michael Babcock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[SQL Server 2000]
Why would someone do a varchar(1).it's no different in terms of
space-saving optimization that char(1), right? Just found this to be odd.
To make you go mmm?
___
Post
On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:07 PM, Michael Babcock wrote:
Why would someone do a varchar(1).it's no different in terms of
space-saving optimization that char(1), right? Just found this to
be odd.
I guess if it's empty, you save a whole byte...
Most likely, though, the table was
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Michael Babcock
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 03:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [NF] Varchar(1) ???
[SQL Server 2000]
Why would someone do a varchar(1).it's no different in terms of space-saving
optimization that char(1), right? Just found this to be odd
Rick Schummer wrote:
Maybe the company/shop have a standard that all character fields are varchar
and the
developer was trying to follow the rules to keep their job. Maybe the specs
dictated the
design. Maybe the original developer set it up to test out the new guy to see
if they are
paying
- fax
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MB
Software Solutions
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 11:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [NF] Varchar(1) ???
Rick Schummer wrote:
Maybe the company/shop have a standard that all character
Rick Schummer wrote:
Heh, I didn't say I designed it. I cannot take any credit for anything =
you are seeing with
varchar involved. g
but varchar is a *good* thing, isn't it? Oh wait...are you saying it's
better optimized as fixed length chars? Do elaborate.
--
Michael J. Babcock, MCP
15 matches
Mail list logo
