Improve company productivity with a Business Account.Sign Up

x
  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 983
  • Last Modified:

SQLServer and VARCHAR(MAX) vs VARCHAR(8192)

Hi.
I am designing a database schema and I have question about VARCHAR. I have a field called ContentBody and it holds the content for a particular block on a page and the page is built from one or many of these blocks.

I don't know if the content editor of the site is going to insert more than 8192 bytes of data or less than 8192 bytes. (I am assuming at this point that VARCHAR(X) and VARCHAR(MAX) are my two options).

If I have VARCHAR(8192), a user will have to break up the content into many blocks, if the block is 20000 bytes say, which is not ideal which leaves me with VARCHAR(MAX). Some of the content might only be 100 bytes though and some maybe 20000 bytes or more.

With such a wide difference in number of bytes in this ContentBody field, what will I be doing to the database performance and size etc?

I hope this question makes sense and thank you for your time with this.

0
MonCapitan
Asked:
MonCapitan
1 Solution
 
Om PrakashCommented:
If you are sure that data will not exceed 8000 then you can go for varchar otherwise you have to go with VARCHAR(MAX) .

With VARCHAR(MAX)  there will be performance issues in terms of  maintaining and reading the data.
0
 
Guy Hengel [angelIII / a3]Billing EngineerCommented:
if you can assume that at some point, the "block size" will be larger than the 8K, go with VARCHAR(MAX).
the performance issue mentioned above would only apply to those rows where the data actually goes over 8K
0
 
MonCapitanAuthor Commented:
Thanks for the replies.

How much of a performance difference. I mean, that is what VARCHAR(MAX) is designed for isn't it to hold lots of content?
0
What Kind of Coding Program is Right for You?

There are many ways to learn to code these days. From coding bootcamps like Flatiron School to online courses to totally free beginner resources. The best way to learn to code depends on many factors, but the most important one is you. See what course is best for you.

 
Guy Hengel [angelIII / a3]Billing EngineerCommented:
VARCHAR(MAX) is designed to combine the flexibility of the "small varchar(x)" and the capacity of the TEXT (2GB) data type.
yes, there is performance issue when you have to store/read/manipulate large data.
there is no performance issue for rows where the column data is "small" ...
0
 
MonCapitanAuthor Commented:
Thanks again angellll. Sorry for bashing this one out a bit but in my scenario, there will be only around 20-30 rows returned with each request that have the VARCHAR(MAX) field. Would that be truly significant on so negligible I shouldn't worry about it?
0
 
Guy Hengel [angelIII / a3]Billing EngineerCommented:
the only true answer will be: you have to test it out.
note that if you have to split up the rows into several rows, you will hence need to time the full process of reassembling the "splitted" rows

0
 
Alpesh PatelAssistant ConsultantCommented:
Varchar(X) - no of length you mentioned
Varchar(MAx) : 64000

Moreover, varchar occupy only those much of space as per the length of string. no as per the defined.
0
 
MonCapitanAuthor Commented:
Which won't take much overhead surely as I will be retrieving the rows, loading them into an object via a .NET DataReader and then reassembling them so most of the work is done at the application level.rather on the database server.

I also believe that 75% of the Rows will have less than 8000 bytes in the VARCHAR(MAX) field but of course, 25% will be over 8000.

Is this reasoning sound to you?
0
 
Guy Hengel [angelIII / a3]Billing EngineerCommented:
unless you prove with tests to use VARCHAR(8000), I would go with the varchar(max) method.
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

Join & Write a Comment

Featured Post

What Kind of Coding Program is Right for You?

There are many ways to learn to code these days. From coding bootcamps like Flatiron School to online courses to totally free beginner resources. The best way to learn to code depends on many factors, but the most important one is you. See what course is best for you.

Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now