Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

Comments on Would a MySQL database run more efficiently with smaller varchar lengths?

Parent

Would a MySQL database run more efficiently with smaller varchar lengths?

+4
−0

I have a database with quite a few VARCHAR fields. When the database was first built the lengths of the columns were set a bit larger than absolutely necessary.

Now after, having used the DB for a while and run a lot of data through it, I have a better idea of how long the fields need to be and am wondering about if reducing the VARCHAR lengths would make it run better.

If I set the lengths to say 10 characters plus what is currently the max length would that help the select and join times?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

General comments (1 comment)
Post
+3
−1

The manual writes:

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.

That is, the only effect of specifying a shorter length limit is that it can enable the database to use 1 rather than 2 bytes to store the (byte) length of the text.

Specifically, this means that a VARCHAR(1) and a VARCHAR(63) are always stored and retrieved in the exact same way (assuming an database character encoding with at most 4 bytes per character such as utf8mb4). Depending on the character encoding used, a VARCHAR with a higher limit may require 1 additional byte to store the length.

That is, VARCHAR length limits have negligible performance impact, and it many cases have no performance impact at all.

The database provides VARCHAR length limit support not because the database needs a limit, but because an application might. For instance, if your user interface has room only for 20 characters, you may want to express this constraint in the database depending on your application architecture.

Historically, this was an important feature because many popular application programming languages such a COBOL used fixed length strings, and databases were often shared by many applications. Nowadays, applications usually handle overly long strings gracefully enough that such constraints are no longer needed (or at least, no longer needed at the database level).

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (2 comments)
General comments
manassehkatz‭ wrote over 3 years ago

This is valid as far as the length-coding. It doesn't get into the issue of how/where the strings are stored - in the main rows vs. separate structure, etc.

meriton‭ wrote over 3 years ago · edited over 3 years ago

It doesn't go into that because that isn't affected by declared VARCHAR sizes - have I missed something?