| List: | General Discussion | « Previous MessageNext Message » | |
| From: | Perrin Harkins | Date: | July 31 2008 3:50pm |
| Subject: | Re: SET vs. ENUM | ||
| View as plain text | |||
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Mr. Shawn H. Corey <shawnhcorey@stripped> wrote: > I don't see how that can be; with ENUM the DB has to set aside enough > bytes for the longest identifier. ENUMs are stored as integers. > The only advantage of ENUM is that > the data is in the same table; you don't have to do an extra join. You don't have to join in order to use a lookup table. You can store the actual values in the column (unlike ENUM). - Perrin
| Thread | ||
|---|---|---|
| • SET vs. ENUM | Jerry Schwartz | 31 Jul |
| • Re: SET vs. ENUM | Martijn Tonies | 31 Jul |
| • RE: SET vs. ENUM | Jerry Schwartz | 31 Jul |
| • Re: SET vs. ENUM | Martijn Tonies | 31 Jul |
| • RE: SET vs. ENUM | Jerry Schwartz | 31 Jul |
| • Re: SET vs. ENUM | Chris W | 31 Jul |
| • Re: SET vs. ENUM | Mr. Shawn H. Corey | 31 Jul |
| • Re: SET vs. ENUM | Chris W | 31 Jul |
| • Re: SET vs. ENUM | Perrin Harkins | 31 Jul |
| • Re: SET vs. ENUM | Mr. Shawn H. Corey | 31 Jul |
| • Re: SET vs. ENUM | Perrin Harkins | 31 Jul |
| • RE: SET vs. ENUM | Jerry Schwartz | 31 Jul |
| • Re: SET vs. ENUM | Martijn Tonies | 1 Aug |
