We know that varchar is a variable length data type then what is the difference between varchar(3) and varchar(300) in mysql ???
In SQL varchar is a string which varies in length. Traditionally, you specify an upper limit for this string. Here are some things to know about varchar:
Strings which are shorter than the specified limit do not take extra space: they only take up the required space.
If the string is longer than the limit, the whole record is rejected, both when you try to INSERT a record, and when you try to UPDATE a record.
Traditionally the upper upper limit was 255 characters. Modern databases no longer have this limit.
Some databases, such as PostgreSQL recommend that you no longer specify the length this way. Instead they recommend an unlimited string (varchar without the length) and limit it using a CHECK CONSTRAINT instead.
Most modern databases handle strings much more efficiently than in the past, so there is less need to be restrictive about the size of the string.
The short answer to your question is that both varchar(3) and varchar(300) are limited-length strings, and both will allow shorter strings without penalty. However clearly one is much shorter than the other.
In addition to #Manngo's answer, varchar(300) has an extra byte of overhead than varchar(3) because its max is over 255. From the MySQL docs...
In contrast to CHAR, VARCHAR values are stored as a 1-byte or 2-byte length prefix plus data. The length prefix indicates the number of bytes in the value. A column uses one length byte if values require no more than 255 bytes, two length bytes if values may require more than 255 bytes.
Basically, the length of the string must be stored. 1 byte can only hold 0 to 255, so 2 bytes are required to store a length that can go up to 300.
Suppose I want to insert a single character in my column in that scenario what is difference between both ?? Why we use varchar(1) why not varchar(100)??
If the column is only supposed to ever store a single character, use char(1), a single byte, to ensure the integrity of the data (varchar(1) is two bytes). That ensures anyone using the column will only ever get what they expect and don't have to do their own data validation.
Since the size of a varchar is only a max, specifying a smaller one won't make the table use any less disk (except as noted above about >255). Avoid adding arbitrary limits and business rules to your columns. For example, if you're going to store a URL or email address, there's little reason not to allow varchar(255). Limits based on business rules and UX concerns should be handed at a higher layer and not limited by the database schema.
Related
I have heard that in MsSQL/Access databases that if you declare a varchar of length 100, it declares those 100 chars every row, even if there is only one char in that column.
I have two questions about this.
First: is this true? And if yes, does this also work like this in MySQL?
Why i'm asking this:
I'm working a lot with mysql, and i came across a table database with 128 longtext-columns. The reasoning behind this was "We cannot be certain how much data gets stored in these columns. sometimes it's 1 char, sometimes thousands." I was wondering if this was the right way storage-wise, or that he has to do some changes.
No, VARCHAR is meant for variable length text, while CHAR is fixed length. The number parameter is the character limit for the text but VARCHAR only uses up as much space as the actual characters you enter in that row (+ some bytes to store the length used).
MySQL, Microsoft SQL Server and pretty much all relational databases work the same way with VARCHAR. Every column takes up some minimum amount of space in a row but with VARCHAR it would be the bytes to store the text + bytes to store the length of the text. No text entered would mean just a 1 or 2 bytes used to save '0' as the length.
If you don't know how much text data will be entered, then use LONGTEXT in MySQL or NVARCHAR(MAX) in MS-SQL. This datatype allows you to store an unlimited amount of text efficiently (up to the row size limitations of the database itself). It's just a bigger, unlimited length version of standard VARCAHR.
For SQL Server the answer is no. From the documentation on MSDN:
varchar [ ( n | max ) ]
Variable-length, non-Unicode string data. n
defines the string length and can be a value from 1 through 8,000. max
indicates that the maximum storage size is 2^31-1 bytes (2 GB). The
storage size is the actual length of the data entered + 2 bytes. The
ISO synonyms for varchar are char varying or character varying.
It is possible someone was confusing VARCHAR and CHAR. The CHAR data type requires a fixed amount of storage, based on the maximum allowed size.
EDIT
Rereading your question I'm not entirely sure I've followed your meaning. If you were not referring to the required storage space then please disregard.
In MySQL what is the difference between VARCHAR(1024) and VARCHAR(512)? If my item will never be more than 512 characters, what do I lose by using VARCHAR(1024)?
Don't know where you got that from, but it's not possible to create a table with varchar without specifying the length. It results in a syntax error. So your question is obsolete.
UPDATE:
Nothing. Varchar is as the name implies a datatype of variable length, at least to the maximum length you specified when creating the table. This means, that in a varchar column for each row one additional byte is used to store how long the string in the row actually is.
So the difference between varchar(1024) and varchar(512) is, that your data gets truncated when you try to insert more than 1024 or 512 bytes. Note: bytes, not characters. How much bytes each character uses is dependent on the character set you're using.
There is a actually a difference. And it can have a big performance impact if you manipulate big data. If a temporary table is used, the records on disk will take the full length indicated instead of the variable length. A high value will slow down the request even more in that case. Temporary tables can occur for various reasons (such as memory full, or some combinations of group by /order by).
VARCHAR(1024) 1024 this is lenght.
The CHAR and VARCHAR types are declared with a length that indicates the maximum number of characters you want to store. For example, CHAR(30) can hold up to 30 characters.
According to mySQL documentation
In contrast to CHAR, VARCHAR values are stored as a 1-byte or 2-byte
length prefix plus data. The length prefix indicates the number of
bytes in the value. A column uses one length byte if values require no
more than 255 bytes, two length bytes if values may require more than
255 bytes.
A deeper analysis of the performance impact of larger VARCHARs can be found here.
I saw comment "If you have 50 million values between 10 and 15 characters in a varchar(20) column, and the same 50 million values in a varchar(50) column, they will take up exactly the same space. That's the whole point of varchar, as opposed to char.". Can Anybody tell me the reason? See What is a reasonable length limit on person "Name" fields?
MySQL offers a choice of storage engines. The physical storage of data depends on the storage engine.
MyISAM Storage of VARCHAR
In MyISAM, VARCHARs typically occupy just the actual length of the string plus a byte or two of length. This is made practical by the design limitation of MyISAM to table locking as opposed to a row locking capability. Performance consequences include a more compact cache profile, but also more complicated (slower) computation of record offsets.
(In fact, MyISAM gives you a degree of choice between fixed physical row size and variable physical row size table formats depending on column types occuring in the whole table. Occurrence of VARCHAR changes the default method only, but the presence of a TEXT blob forces VARCHARs in the same table to use the variable length method as well.)
The physical storage method is particularly important with indexes, which is a different story than tables. MyISAM uses space compression for both CHAR and VARCHAR columns, meaning that shorter data take up less space in the index in both cases.
InnoDB Storage of VARCHAR
InnoDB, like most other current relational databases, uses a more sophisticated mechanism. VARCHAR columns whose maximum width is less than 768 bytes will be stored inline, with room reserved matching that maximum width. More accurately here:
For each non-NULL variable-length field, the record header contains
the length of the column in one or two bytes. Two bytes will only be
needed if part of the column is stored externally in overflow pages or
the maximum length exceeds 255 bytes and the actual length exceeds 127
bytes. For an externally stored column, the two-byte length indicates
the length of the internally stored part plus the 20-byte pointer to
the externally stored part. The internal part is 768 bytes, so the
length is 768+20. The 20-byte pointer stores the true length of the
column.
InnoDB currently does not do space compression in its indexes, the opposite of MyISAM as described above.
Back to the question
All of the above is however just an implementational detail that may even change between versions. The true difference between CHAR and VARCHAR is semantic, and so is the one between VARCHAR(20) and VARCHAR(50). By ensuring that there is no way to store a 30 character string in a VARCHAR(20), the database makes the life easier and better defined for various processors and applications that it supposedly integrates into a predictably behaving solution. This is the big deal.
Regarding personal names specifically, this question may give you some practical guidance. People with full names over 70 UTF-8 characters are in trouble anyway.
Yes, that is indeed the whole point of VARCHAR. It only takes up as much space as the text is long.
If you had CHAR(50), it would take up 50 bytes (or characters) no matter how short the data really is (it would be padded, usually by spaces).
Can Anybody tell me the reason?
Because people thought it was wasteful to store a lot of useless padding, they invented VARCHAR.
The manual states:
The CHAR and VARCHAR types are declared with a length that indicates the maximum number of characters you want to store. (...)
In contrast to CHAR, VARCHAR values are stored as a one-byte or two-byte length prefix plus data. The length prefix indicates the number of bytes in the value. A column uses one length byte if values require no more than 255 bytes, two length bytes if values may require more than 255 bytes.
Notice that VARCHAR(255) is not the same as VARCHAR(256).
This is theory. As habeebperwad suggests, the actual footprint of one row depends on (engine) page size and (hard disk) block size.
CHAR is stored as a fixed length string, VARCHAR is stored as a variable length string. I can use VARCHAR to store a fixed length string, but why people still want to use CHAR to store a fixed length string? Is there any benefit of using CHAR over VARCHAR? If none of benefit, why mySQL database doesn't remove the option of CHAR?
VARCHAR
varchar stores variable-length character string. it can require less storage than fixed-length types because it uses only as much space as it needs.
varchar also uses 1 or 2 extra bytes to record the value's length. for example varchar(10) will use up to 11 bytes of storage space. varchar helps performance because it saves space. however because the rows are variable length, they can grow when you update them, which can cause extra work. if a row grows and no longer fits in its original location, the behavior is storage engine-dependent...
CHAR
char is fixed-length , mysql always allocates enough space for the specified number of characters. When storing a CHAR value, MySQL removes any trailing spaces. Values are padded with spaces as needed for comparisons.
char is useful if you want to store very short strings, or if all the values are nearly
the same length. For example, CHAR is a good choice for MD5 values for user passwords,
which are always the same length.
char is also better than VARCHAR for data that’s changed frequently, because a fixed-length row is not prone to fragmentation.
How does MySQL store a varchar field? Can I assume that the following pattern represents sensible storage sizes :
1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,255 (max)
A clarification via example. Lets say I have a varchar field of 20 characters. Does MySQL when creating this field, basically reserve space for 32 bytes(not sure if they are bytes or not) but only allow 20 to be entered?
I guess I am worried about optimising disk space for a massive table.
To answer the question, on disk MySql uses 1 + the size that is used in the field to store the data (so if the column was declared varchar(45), and the field was "FooBar" it would use 7 bytes on disk, unless of course you where using a multibyte character set, where it would be using 14 bytes). So, however you declare your columns, it wont make a difference on the storage end (you stated you are worried about disk optimization for a massive table). However, it does make a difference in queries, as VARCHAR's are converted to CHAR's when MySql makes a temporary table (SORT, ORDER, etc) and the more records you can fit into a single page, the less memory and faster your table scans will be.
MySQL stores a varchar field as a variable length record, with either a one-byte or a two-byte prefix to indicate the record size.
Having a pattern of storage sizes doesn't really make any difference to how MySQL will function when dealing with variable length record storage. The length specified in a varchar(x) declaration will simply determine the maximum length of the data that can be stored. Basically, a varchar(16) is no different disk-wise than a varchar(128).
This manual page has a more detailed explanation.
Edit: With regards to your updated question, the answer is still the same. A varchar field will only use up as much space on disk as the data you store in it (plus a one or two byte overhead). So it doesn't matter if you have a varchar(16) or a varchar(128), if you store a 10-character string in it, you're only going to use 10 bytes (plus 1 or 2) of disk space.