Re: char vs varchar2

On Fri, 22 May 1998 08:16:57 GMT, Tim Hall <tim.hall_at_spam.begone> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 May 1998 23:51:25 GMT, joelga_at_pebble.org (Joel Garry)
>wrote:
>
>>Of more concern may
>>be using a 1 character string to primary index a large table. I smell a
>>design problem.
>>
>
>Does a maximum of 256 rows count as "large"?

Well, compared to 256,000,000 rows I'd say not.

>
>(I presume it's part of a concatenated key :)

Should we?

Seems a bit presumptuous, considering the explicit original statement:

>I have a large table. Its primary index is one character string.
>Could anyone tell me which datatype ( char(1) or varchar2(1) )
>I should use? What are advantages in terms of performance?

Posters remember, state enough so we can answer questions you intend to ask. Include version numbers and platforms, too, it often makes a difference.

>
> Tim hall
> Indus International
>
> Email: tim.hall (at) iint.com
> http: //www.indusworld.com

--
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest

or Pebble In The Sky                     http://www.informationquest.com

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry jgarry@nospameiq.com
"See your DBA?"  I AM the @#%*& DBA!     Remove nospam to reply.  Sorry.