|
|
Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 09/12/06 21:28
Tzanko (tzanko.tzanev@strategicthought.com) writes:
> As we all know, there is a 8060 bytes size limit on SQL Server rows.
Yes, in SQL 2000. Not in SQL 2005. There a row can span pages.
> I have a table which requires a number of text fields (5 or 6).
Do these text fields hold the same text that spans fields, or are
they different texts?
> I am given to review a design, which esentially suggests moving the text
> columns to a separate TextFields table. The TextFields table will have
> two columns - a unique reference and a VARCHAR (4000) column, thus
> allowing us to crossreference with the original record.
If they are different texts they should be in different columns, or you
should have some type column telling them apatt.
> My first impresion is that I'd rather use the SQL Server 'text' DB type
> instead, which would allow me the same functionality with much less
> effort and possibly better performance.
Yes, if they the column are all the same text, this might be the way
to go. You can store up to 2GB in a text column.
But better performance? Nah. If nothing else, text is difficult to
work with and there are lot of limitations. As Ed mention, SQL 2005
comes with varchar(MAX) which also can fit 2GB, but which you can
work with in the same way as a regular varchar.
If the columns are different texts, I see little point to use the
text data type.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|