> >>You don't consider a requirement that a field be no longer than a
> >>certain length a reason not to use TEXT?
>
> Can't you just create a TEXT(255) field same as you can just create
> VARCHAR (with no length) field? I think they're basically synonyms for
> each other these days.
I'll defer to the SQL standard gurus on this, as well as to the internals
guys, but I suspect there is a difference between the standard itself
and implementor details, such as how char, varchar, varchar2 and text
are implemented. As long as things work as specified, I don't think
the standard cares much about what's happening behind the curtain.
--
Mike Nolan