On Oct 27, 2017, at 11:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> The OCD part of me wants to define the smallest type possible, whereas the > "let's set it and never worry about it" part of me says "just make everything > INT." It's not just the size of the column in the row stored on the disk; it's the size of any index it's part of, and the size of the memory footprint for the column when filtering, sorting, etc. Generally I don't obsess trying to make it as small as possible, but neither do I just make everything huge so that I don't have to worry about it. Use the sanest size (that's based on your experience being a DBA), and if worse comes to worse, there's always ALTER TABLE. :) -- Ed Leafe --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/signed text/plain (text body -- kept) application/pgp-signature --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
