Em 15/12/2015 00:27, Jim Nasby escreveu:
On 12/9/15 5:43 PM, Edson Richter wrote:
Actually, the biggest change is that I don't have to keep another
constraint between app and database - if I want to increase the user
perceived space, now I just have to change the application (of course,
under th
On 12/9/15 5:43 PM, Edson Richter wrote:
Actually, the biggest change is that I don't have to keep another
constraint between app and database - if I want to increase the user
perceived space, now I just have to change the application (of course,
under the limits).
For what it's worth, I usuall
Thanks.
After reading, I've run some tests and found no storage changes in
tables moving from varchar(2000) to text.
Actually, the biggest change is that I don't have to keep another
constraint between app and database - if I want to increase the user
perceived space, now I just have to change
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Edson Richter
> wrote:
>
>> I do have several tables that uses varchar(2000) as store for remarks.
>> Lately, one customer need to store more than 2000 characteres, and I'm
>> considering changing from varcha
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Edson Richter wrote:
> I do have several tables that uses varchar(2000) as store for remarks.
> Lately, one customer need to store more than 2000 characteres, and I'm
> considering changing from varchar(2000) to text.
>
> What is the overhead?
None -- they are sto
Hi!
I do have several tables that uses varchar(2000) as store for remarks.
Lately, one customer need to store more than 2000 characteres, and I'm
considering changing from varchar(2000) to text.
What is the overhead?
Is there any place where I can learn about storage impacto for each data
ty
