NVARCHAR sizes in SQL Server 2005 -
In SQL Server 2005 (not 7.0), there is no need to use NVHAR (255) instead of 256 or any other number reason ?
Is there an optimum shape, and is there any reason to use the powers of two?
(I will store unicode data, so I must use N VARCHAR)
In SQL Server (2000 and earlier IIRC), the optimal (possibly and maximum) size columns are simultaneously dependent on the size of all columns, (n) except text and image content. I believe 8K is the 'natural' size of records in a table, so your column size should be less than 8000 bytes.
This is no problem, more than SQL Server 2005, I believe.
Comments
Post a Comment