List:MySQL and .NET« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Reggie Burnett Date:December 20 2004 9:11pm
Subject:RE: VACHAR and performance
View as plain text  

First let me say that this is the wrong newsgroup for generic server-related
performance issues.  

That being said, however, I don't think you'll see any degradation of
performance.  Of course, it would depend on how many rows we are talking
about.  With a small number of rows, you certainly aren't going to see any
issue.  With millions of rows, there may be some difference between the two.
Certainly, any row index is faster with a well-crafted index on it.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Questembert [mailto:patrickq@stripped]
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 2:53 PM
> To: dotnet@stripped
> Subject: VACHAR and performance
> Hi all,
> If I have a text field holding a name between 8 and 32 chars, would it
> hurt
> performance if I defined it as VACHAR (as opposed to fixed size at 32)?
> Would the answer to this question depend on:
> - whether or not I have an index defined for this column (I think I will
> define an index for it)
> - whether I have another VACHAR column for that row in any case (I do), on
> the grounds that if one column in the table is of variable length, then
> the
> total row size is variable anyhow, and performance will not suffer from
> yet
> another variable-length column
> Thanks!
> Patrick
> --
> MySQL on .NET Mailing List
> For list archives:
> To unsubscribe:

utf8Jorge Bastos20 Dec
  • VACHAR and performancePatrick Questembert20 Dec
    • RE: VACHAR and performanceJordan Sparks20 Dec
    • RE: VACHAR and performanceReggie Burnett20 Dec
      • RE: VACHAR and performanceJames Moore20 Dec