Re: Varchars Vs Chars - Performance -Reply

>>> SaTriGuy <satriguy@aol.com> 27/June/1997 Lots snipped. >> Bottom line - a decision has to be made which >>is more important, the cpu cycles or the disk >>space. For my money, the cpu cycles are more >>important. This may not always be the case. We have a replication facility that uses a log table of 16 key names, and 16 key values to allow asynchonous discrete data replication. Although we have allowed up to 16 key fields, the reality is however that most of our tables have a single key. This table was initially configured as char(18) for the fieldnames and char (40) for the key values and when making (for us) large replications of say 250,000 records, was blowing the size of this table right out. In many instances, holding the key value of the [to be] replicated record was taking far more space than the record itself. Most of the fields were empty. We have moved these fields to be varchar and now do not have many of the problems that we previously had. Varchar has proven to be a useful facility for us in this context, and as a DBA, has made my life a lot easier. rgds Peter Tashkoff <tashkop@zespri.co.nz> Zespri International Limited This posting may not be used by any party to vilify another. Standard disclaimers apply.