Trouble Ahead
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@blakeyrat said:
@boomzilla said:
@blakeyrat said:
Meanwhile, Microsoft's simplified their database so that all text-storage tasks can be achieved with a single data type, NVarChar. (It still has a fucking stupid name, though.)
I suspect one reason Oracle wouldn't want to do that is backwards compatibility. VARCHAR2 (which replaced VARCHAR, which was limited to 2000 characters) is limited to 4000 characters, and I'm sure that assumption is baked into so many things already...Having different datatypes for really large stuff probably also makes storage optimizations easier.VARCHAR3, duh.
VARCHAR311FORWORKGROUPS
Goddamn Mozilla just came out with another fucking Varchar. I think it's Varchar9, but I can't tell since they've removed the fucking version numbers.
And get this-- their reason is because it's a "living" data type.
I am using iVARCHAR. It's more expensive than other text storing datatypes but I just had to have it. I only wish it didn't restrict what text you could store in it but most of the useful ones are available in the String Store.
-
@blakeyrat said:
VARCHAR311FORWORKGROUPS
OK, I laughed aloud at that one.
