RE: Char and Varchar

Yes, the database stores the lenght of the varchar field, so an extra byte is necessary. For fixed length fields, char type is more convenient. > -----Mensaje original----- > De: Peter Morris [SMTP:no_sp@m.please] > Enviado el: Lunes 27 de Noviembre de 2000 09:56 AM > Para: informix-list@iiug.org > Asunto: Char and Varchar > > My company proposes changing all char(x) columns to varchar(x) > on the grounds that > > "Char stores data in a fixed length format and if data varies in > length from row to row then space is wasted. By using varchar we > can use the storage space more efficiently " > > What about fixed length fields? If we have a char(10) column, > and we know that every item in that column will be exactly 10 > characters long, then is there any advantage in making it a varchar? > > I think it might even be less efficient. I presume that for a varchar > the database must store the length of the data, in addition to the data, > so there would be extra resources used. > > Am I right? For a fixed length field, is char or varchar better? > Or doesn't it make any difference? > > >