Subject | Re: [IBO] statement Union in a TIBO_Query |
---|---|
Author | Lester Caine |
Post date | 2004-08-30T10:47:20Z |
Vahan Yoghoudjian wrote:
it's not compliant with SQL99 if the field sizes are different.
There is no problem just making both VARCHAR(8) even if your application
limits one to 4 characters. Swings and roundabouts on CHAR(8), it would
save the two size bytes, but adds the rest of the white space as bytes
instead.
--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services
> Yes I have codes in the client table longer than 4 characters, as for theMaybe none - there has been some work in changing this, but I think that
> NAME fields they have the same size but I tried with fields of different
> size and I had no problem, I guess having this problem on the CODE fields is
> because both fields are the primary keys in their tables. Ideally what I
> should do is to convert the CODE field in operators table to char(8) same as
> the CODE in Clients, but then I have to change my coding policy for
> operators in my application.
>
> What kind of errors do you expect for varchar to give later on?
it's not compliant with SQL99 if the field sizes are different.
There is no problem just making both VARCHAR(8) even if your application
limits one to 4 characters. Swings and roundabouts on CHAR(8), it would
save the two size bytes, but adds the rest of the white space as bytes
instead.
--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services