On Mon, February 13, 2006 11:07 am, Darrel O'Pry said:
To add on...
My understanding of Mysql(isam && innodb), correct me if I'm wrong, is that there is really no difference between the varchar(n) types and text. At least in terms of memory consumption/character. http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/4.1/en/storage-requirements.html
I'd really prefer seeing greater text field lengths. It would close a few issues in the issue queue as well... Like aggregator clipping RSS guid's.
.darrel.
That may be true, but there's a lot less that you can do with a text field than a varchar field. A varchar can be a key, can be indexed, and can be used in a WHERE field='' clause. A text field has none of those, AFAIK. (You can use WHERE LIKE, but not =.) The real problem is the low character limit on varchar in MySQL, which I believe is 255. (Contrast to MS SQL which is some 8 KB for an nvarchar.) We may want to use text in more places than we do now, but it is less flexible than varchar programmatically. --Larry Garfield