|
Home > Archive > MS SQL Server > April 2006 > large VarChar vs Text
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
large VarChar vs Text
|
|
| Wingman 2006-04-07, 11:23 am |
| Hi,
We are using SQL 2K with SP4.
We have a char field which can potentially have up to 6,400 characters,
should we use Text instead. Is there a guideline to when we should use Text
vs Varchar? I am concerning which way will give us the best storage
management and performance.
wingman
| |
| Keith Kratochvil 2006-04-07, 11:23 am |
| If you read Books Online (the reference materials that come with SQL Server)
you will probably come to the conclusion that you should use varchar.
Varchar is much more flexible, and it is easier to work with.
--
Keith Kratochvil
"Wingman" <Wingman@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8EECDAFE-542C-4727-A106- AF96146CE22F@microso
ft.com...
> Hi,
>
> We are using SQL 2K with SP4.
>
> We have a char field which can potentially have up to 6,400 characters,
> should we use Text instead. Is there a guideline to when we should use
> Text
> vs Varchar? I am concerning which way will give us the best storage
> management and performance.
>
> wingman
|
|
|
|
|