List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Paul DuBois Date:July 27 1999 6:15pm
Subject:Re: Varchar question
View as plain text  
At 11:04 AM -0700 7/27/99, Thimble Smith wrote:
>At 23:10, 19990726, Paul DuBois wrote:
>>At 1:58 AM -0500 7/27/99, David Stack wrote:
>>>Lets say my max record length is 30 characters in size.
>>>
>>>Is there any disadvantage to using the varchar(255) column in the above
>>>situation?
>>
>>None that I can see.  About the only difference is that if you store
>>a 31-character string into a VARCHAR(30) column, the last character will
>>be chopped of.  With VARCHAR(255), it won't be.
>
>As I understand it, MySQL will allocate 255 bytes in memory to hold
>the values in that column.  So it will use slightly more memory when
>performing queries if you use (255) instead of (30).

Ah, that's true.  Although it will allocate only one buffer and reuse
it per row (unlike BLOB/TEXT).

-- 
Paul DuBois, paul@stripped
Thread
Varchar questionDavid Stack27 Jul
  • Re: Varchar questionPaul DuBois27 Jul
    • Re: Varchar questionThimble Smith27 Jul
      • Re: Varchar questionPaul DuBois27 Jul
Re: Varchar questionDavid Kaufman27 Jul