Re: Data Type nvarchar or varchar
- From: "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)>
- Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:27:54 -0500
There is more in life and in database than just trying to save a few bytes
here and there; otherwise, everyone will still be using DOS instead of
Windows - and even better, CP/M before DOS.
Here's a tip: instead of using upper case and lower case letters, use only
upper case. This way, by using 6 bit characters and writing/compressing
your data into binary fields - or using the compression from SQL-2008 -
you'll save even more space.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)
"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <aaron.kempf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:9f194ca0-4a32-4a3a-b0d4-0e8c5419d472@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
What you're saying is directly contradicted in MS Press books.
I just think that what _YOU_ say is your own opinon.
Varchar is just about half the size of Nvarchar.
Anyone with any serious experience in DW / DM / VLDB would be adamant
about using optimal datatypes.
Wasting space- and allowing corrupted data-- is a bad choice.
Using Varchar is safer, IMHO.
On Nov 11, 8:17 am, "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the
blanks, no spam please)> wrote:
If you don't believe in nVarchar, why should I care? You are entitled to
your own opinion and if what you see from the world doesn't extend any
further than the walls around you, it's not of my business (or interest)
at
all.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)
"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <aaron.ke...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
in
messagenews:6e9339d0-de7c-413a-98cb-2eabdb8da7d4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
This contradicts a lot of books from MS press.
I just don't believe in Nvarchar, for nearly any reason whatsoever.
On Oct 17, 7:35 pm, "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the
blanks, no spam please)> wrote:
uh, twice the number of records per page is a compelling reason, IMHO
Weak reason in my opinion. First, it's not 100% of fields who are of
type
characters; if you add to that the space occuped by indexes and empty
space
here and there, the difference between a database based on Ascii
exclusively
and one based on Unicode is usually around 30% more of space disk. Most
operations inside a database are based on numeric key and/or datetime;
which
give us an upper limit of 10% slower but this is an upper limit and it
will
be around 1~2% for most operations in a real case scenario excerpt for
string searching. For string searching, this will be around 20% but in
the
case of string searching, we usually don't care at all about speed.
IMHO, having a Damocles' sword hanging over your head for 1% or 2% more
of
performance is totally absurd.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)
"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" <aaron.ke...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote
in
messagenews:d92058a6-5b75-465b-a5f7-fed82f612eeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
uh, twice the number of records per page is a compelling reason, IMHO
I think that yes, you should use varchar for almost everything,
nvarchar-- where appropriate.
-Aaron
On Oct 17, 9:43 am, "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei ca (fill the
blanks, no spam please)> wrote:
Portuguese has diacritical symbols in its alphabet, so you need to use
a
code page if you want to go the ASCII road. Everytime you use a code
page,
there is always a possibility that you will have problem if your data
is
to
be access by a machine which doesn't use the exact same code page; so
for
example someone who is greek, russian, chinese or even french - whose
alphabet is close but not identical to the portuguese - will have
problem
accessing or updating your data.
If I were you, I would stop bothering myself and Unicode. There is
alreay
enough problems in life so that you don't really have the need (or the
luxury) to add more to it. You database was already running fine in
Access
with Unicode, why would you want to start changing things now?
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)
"Jose" <perd...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23F5lHLGMJHA.2348@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
My data is enghish or portuguese, so, is derived from latin
language.
Do you think can i change nvarchar to varchar without impact
problems?
Thanks,
Jose
"Scott Lichtenberg" <do...@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu na mensagem
news:e2FWfkFMJHA.2036@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
nvarchar supports Unicode data. Functionally, it's the same as
varchar,
but it may require additional storage - I think Unicode requires
two
bytes per character instead of one - but I could be wrong. If your
data
is always going to be English (or a similar ASCII based language)
you
can
switch the data types back to varchar.
"Jose" <perd...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eVHbQjEMJHA.3688@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
When we use upgrade wizard to migrate ms access to sql server, the
fields data type text is converted to nvarchar.
My question is, Can I change nvarchar to varchar? These changes
does
it
not affect nothing?
Thanks
JCP- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Data Type nvarchar or varchar
- From: a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m
- Re: Data Type nvarchar or varchar
- References:
- Re: Data Type nvarchar or varchar
- From: a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m
- Re: Data Type nvarchar or varchar
- From: Sylvain Lafontaine
- Re: Data Type nvarchar or varchar
- From: a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m
- Re: Data Type nvarchar or varchar
- Prev by Date: Re: Data Type nvarchar or varchar
- Next by Date: Re: Data Type nvarchar or varchar
- Previous by thread: Re: Data Type nvarchar or varchar
- Next by thread: Re: Data Type nvarchar or varchar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
