Thread: same size VARCHAR or INT IX faster?

same size VARCHAR or INT IX faster?

From
Matthew Peter
Date:
same size VARCHAR or INT IX faster? i assume INT. The
reason I ask is I was wondering what (if any) is the
avg delay from one over the other? And benefit of one
over the other? Thanks.



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html


Re: same size VARCHAR or INT IX faster?

From
Richard Huxton
Date:
Matthew Peter wrote:
> same size VARCHAR or INT IX faster? i assume INT. The
> reason I ask is I was wondering what (if any) is the
> avg delay from one over the other? And benefit of one
> over the other? Thanks.

If you want numbers, use INT. If you want text use a VARCHAR.


It's probably difficult to come up with speed comparisons for "the same
size" since varchar will have an overhead for the field-length as well
as the number of characters.

Even then, you'd have to account for client language and application
overheads.

In any case, optimising at this level is unlikely to be a good use of
your time unless you really have reached the practical limits of
available hardware.

--
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd

Re: same size VARCHAR or INT IX faster?

From
Matthew Peter
Date:
I assumed as much. Now's the time for me to optimize
so I'd rather know and make optimizations accordingly,
than step blindly. Thanks for the reply. As always,
your a big help.

--- Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> wrote:

> Matthew Peter wrote:
> > same size VARCHAR or INT IX faster? i assume INT.
> The
> > reason I ask is I was wondering what (if any) is
> the
> > avg delay from one over the other? And benefit of
> one
> > over the other? Thanks.
>
> If you want numbers, use INT. If you want text use a
> VARCHAR.
>
>
> It's probably difficult to come up with speed
> comparisons for "the same
> size" since varchar will have an overhead for the
> field-length as well
> as the number of characters.
>
> Even then, you'd have to account for client language
> and application
> overheads.
>
> In any case, optimising at this level is unlikely to
> be a good use of
> your time unless you really have reached the
> practical limits of
> available hardware.
>
> --
>    Richard Huxton
>    Archonet Ltd
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map
> settings
>




____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs