"Paul Pedersen" <no-reply@swen.com> wrote in message
news:O8cKju3eFHA.3028@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Is there a general rule when to use char and when to use varchar? I'm
> talking about short, simple fields, like "last name" etc.
>
> I had thought that varchars would be useful, since I won't need to trim
> them after retrieving their values; but instead I have to trim before
> storing, so there's no real savings. They take the same amount of storage
> space, right?
>
> Anyone care to comment on the relative benefits?
>
>
>
>
>

wrote in message news:%23jso223eFHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> The difference is between doing the trim one time or an unlimited number
> of times and no, they doesn't take the same amount of storage. (With, of
> course, the exception that very short fields of 1, 2 or 3 chars may take a
> little more space because of the two bytes required to store the length of
> the string.)
>
> Excerpt for particular cases where the number of characters is fixed by
> the nature of the field, you should always use varchar or nvarchar.
>
> --
> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
> E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
>
>
> "Paul Pedersen" <no-reply@swen.com> wrote in message
> news:O8cKju3eFHA.3028@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Is there a general rule when to use char and when to use varchar? I'm
>> talking about short, simple fields, like "last name" etc.
>>
>> I had thought that varchars would be useful, since I won't need to trim
>> them after retrieving their values; but instead I have to trim before
>> storing, so there's no real savings. They take the same amount of storage
>> space, right?
>>
>> Anyone care to comment on the relative benefits?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>