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

Popular posts from this blog

c# - ListView onScroll event -

PHP - get image from byte array -

Linux Terminal Problem with Non-Canonical Terminal I/O app -