Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
cbeganesh
Posting Yak Master
105 Posts |
 Posted - 2009-05-08 : 10:39:54
|
| i have 75 million records table with 10 columns each with varchar(255). The values in those columns is lot less than 255. I want to know whether changing the columns length to 100 will save any disk space. since the fields are varchar , do they occupy 255 or they will occupy based on their actual value. I dont want to change the columns unless it improves the diskspace, since it may take long time to change the columns length |
|
|
visakh16
Very Important crosS Applying yaK Herder
52326 Posts |
Posted - 2009-05-08 : 11:01:12
|
| http://rezolude4.com/r4_blog_varchar_vs_char___why_use_one_than_the_other_for_performance_s_sake_.html |
 |
|
|
cbeganesh
Posting Yak Master
105 Posts |
Posted - 2009-05-08 : 12:10:10
|
| thanks |
|
|
|
visakh16
Very Important crosS Applying yaK Herder
52326 Posts |
Posted - 2009-05-08 : 13:28:04
|
| welcome |
|
|
|
|
|
|
table with varchar(255)