Re: Varchar vs Nvarchar
- From: "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:28:46 -0500
"David Browne" <davidbaxterbrowne no potted meat@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:ODq7FGE9FHA.444@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I have to agree here. Although 7.6g is really not much, a database half
> that size is significantly easier to manage and will perform better
> automatically.
True. Smaller data means fewer data pages to read into memory when
retrieving rows, which means fewer I/O operations, which means better
performance. But the flip side is how long it might take to convert the
entire database... and if there's no performance problem already, it may not
be worthwhile.
--
Adam Machanic
Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=457
--
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Varchar vs Nvarchar
- From: MC
- Re: Varchar vs Nvarchar
- References:
- Re: Varchar vs Nvarchar
- From: Adam Machanic
- Re: Varchar vs Nvarchar
- From: David Browne
- Re: Varchar vs Nvarchar
- Prev by Date: Re: Varchar vs Nvarchar
- Next by Date: Re: Varchar vs Nvarchar
- Previous by thread: Re: Varchar vs Nvarchar
- Next by thread: Re: Varchar vs Nvarchar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading