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.

Post History

62%

+3 −1

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

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 len...

posted 4y ago by meriton‭ · edited 4y ago by meriton‭

Answer

#3: Post edited by

meriton‭ · 2020-08-20T17:15:17Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

The manual [writes](https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/char.html):
> 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 used 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).

The manual [writes](https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/char.html):
> 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).

#2: Post edited by

meriton‭ · 2020-08-20T17:13:10Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

The manual [writes](https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/char.html):
> 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 used 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).

The manual [writes](https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/char.html):
> 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 used 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).

#1: Initial revision by

meriton‭ · 2020-08-20T17:11:59Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

The manual [writes](https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/char.html):

> 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 used 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).

Communities

Post History