On Sep 3, 2007, at 7:26 AM, Gregory Stark wrote:
> Also, incidentally do you have a good reason to use CHAR instead of
> varchar or
> text? char(64) will take 64 bytes (actually 68 bytes in 8.2) even
> if you don't
> store anything more in it. text or varchar will take only as many
> bytes as the
> data you're storing (plus 4 bytes).
Hrm, do we actually pad before storing? ISTM we should really do that
the other way around...
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828