Re: Size or efficiency differences "varchar(128) vs. varchar(32)"

Sorry, forgot to replay all.

> Emi Lu wrote:
> 
>> May I know does varchar(128) and varchar(32) will cause any size or  
>> efficiency differences?
> 
> None at all.


Basically, there is no efficiency differences at all, if I know a column 
is now varchar(32) but could be potentially increased to length(col)>32 
in the future, I will setup to varchar(128).

This column will be setup as varchar(128) everywhere so that foreign key 
constraints will work.

I had thought "foreign constraint, query or indexes" on varchar(32) 
could be more efficient than varchar(128) and I was wrong.

I will use varchar(128) for my column.

Thanks a lot!