Re: Varchar vs Nvarchar
- From: "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 11:20:34 -0500
While I agree that you might not need NVARCHAR based on your description,
I'm not sure that it's something worth worrying about. 7.5 gigs is not a
lot of disk space... Why the concern?
--
Adam Machanic
Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=457
--
"MChrist" <MChrist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5653976D-FA2D-4E0C-AECA-DDEF7640E124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Please pardon my ignorance here, but I'm a newbie with MS SQL Server.
>
> I have a database that contains a table with 33.6 million records. When I
> built the table I used Nvarchar in several of the fields. Now I'm
> thinking
> that because the db size is 7.5 gb, that I could reduce that by changing
> the
> datatype to Varchar.
>
> Since I'm not changing languages or porting hardware platforms is there a
> good reason why I should keep the nvarchar data type other that it will
> take
> an eternity to save the new table structure?
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions as to which would be faster, building a
> new
> table and importing the records via a query, or just changing the existing
> datatype and saving the table.
>
> TIA!
>
> Mark
>
>
.
- Prev by Date: RE: SSIS truncates and/or rounds the data
- Next by Date: Re: Varchar vs Nvarchar
- Previous by thread: RE: SSIS truncates and/or rounds the data
- Next by thread: Re: Varchar vs Nvarchar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading