Here is something that troubles me as I am creating a database table columns. For each of these there is a data type which has it's length. For e.g say one of the tables is a file path, and I assume this file path to be not longer than 100 in length at max, obviously i specify this as
filepath Varchar(100)
However, this still takes the same amount of memory space as say varchar(255) which is 1 byte. Given this, what is the benefit of me specifying the length as 100. Taking an outlier example, if my filepath exceeds varchar(100), does the database reject/trim down the filepath value to fit it to 100? Or does it allow it to exceed beyond 100 since the allotted memory space is still around 1 byte?
Essentially the above explanation frames my question as should one try and be very specific about the expected maximum length for a table column? Or just play it safe and specify the upper limit of the expected length of the table column depending on the memory requirement ?
Thanks much !
Parijat
MySQL will auto-truncate the value down to 100 characters. The number in the brackets for text/char fields is the MAXIMUM length. Note that this is a CHARACTER limit. If you've got a multibyte collation on that field, you can store more than 100 bytes in the field, but only 100 characters worth of text.
This is different than saying int(10), where the bracketed number is for display purposes only. An int is an int internally and takes up 16bits, regardless of how many digits you allow with the (#), but you'll never SEE more than those # digits.
very specific about the expected maximum length for a table column? Or just play it safe
If one would make a table containing addresses, you undoubtedly know that there will be some kind of limit to the length of the address. It would be useless to allow longer fields in the database.
You should play it safe, and be very careful.
Related
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.
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.
I usually use maximum chars possible for varchar fields, so in most cases I set 255 but only using 16 chars in columns...
does this decreases performance for my database?
When it comes to storage, a VARCHAR(255) column will take up 1 byte to store the length of the actual value plus the bytes required to store the actual value.
For a latin1 VARCHAR(255) column, that's at most 256 bytes. For a UTF8 column, where each character can take up to 3 bytes (though rarely), the maximum size is 766 bytes. As we know the maximum index length for a single column in bytes in InnoDB is 767 bytes, hence perhaps the reason some declare 255 as the maximum supported column length.
So, again, when storing the value, it only takes up as much room as is actually needed.
However, if the column is indexed, the index automatically allocates the maximum possible size so that each node in the index has enough room to store any possible value. When searching through an index, MySQL loads the nodes in specific byte size chunks at a time. Large nodes means less nodes per read, which means it takes longer to search the index.
MySQL will also use the maximum size when storing the values in a temp table for sorting.
So, even if you aren't using indexes, but are ever performing a query that can't utilize an index for sorting, you will get a performance hit.
Therefore, if performance is your goal, setting any VARCHAR column to 255 characters should not be a rule of thumb. Instead, you should use the minimum required.
There may be edge cases where you'd rather suffer the performance every day so that you never have to lock a table completely to increase the size of a column, but I don't think that's the norm.
One possible exception is if you are joining on a VARCHAR column between two tables. MySQL says:
MySQL can use indexes on columns more efficiently if they are declared
as the same type and size.
In that case, you might use the max size between the two.
Whenever you're talking about "performance" you can only find out one way: Benchmarking.
In theoretical terms there's no difference between VARCHAR(20) and VARCHAR(255) if they're both populated with the same data. Keep in mind if you get your length wrong you will have massive truncation problems and MySQL does not warn you before it starts chopping data to fit.
I try to avoid setting limits on VARCHAR columns unless the data would be completely invalid if it was longer. For instance, two-character ISO country codes can be stored in VARCHAR(2) because longer strings are meaningless. For other things, especially names or phone numbers, limiting the length is potentially and probably harmful.
Still, you will want to test any schema you create to be sure it meets your performance requirements. I expect you'd have a hard time detecting any difference at all between VARCHAR(25) and VARCHAR(16).
There are two ways in which this will decrease performance.
if you're loading those columns many many times, performing a join on the column, or other such thing that means they need to be accessed a large number of times. The number of times depends on your machine, but think on the order of millions.
if you're always filling the field (using 20 chars in a varchar(20), then the length checks are adding a little overhead whenever you perform an insert.
The best way to determine this though is to benchmark your database though.
Accoridng to this SO Post the max length accpeted by IE is about 2048. However this seems way too big to set my varchar field in mysql as most urls are typically smaller about 200 characters. Is this field meant to be set to the maximum or the average?
Don't worry -- you can still set the max size to 2048. This is just a maximum -- if a URL only takes 200 characters then that's all the DB engine will use.
If you use varchar, it won't matter. Check out the example from the MySQL docs.
If you decide to go with char, on the other hand, you will be storing a constant amount of data. Then you may wish to only store the domain -- a domain name is allowed to be up to 253 characters long. I suppose if you wanted to draw a line in the sand, that would probably be a reasonable one. You need to let the user know all of this BTW. Otherwise things could get bad.
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.