Re: SQL Humor

26 Aug 2005 11:56 AM

Paul

rchris***@patmedia.net wrote:

> Joe, I use char(9) and a minimal constraint. And a good front end
> developer will do things there to ensure only digits and do formatting
> and stuff. But the first question I'm wondering about is running out of
> space. I suppose the feds could go alpha-numeric; that would nearly
> quadruple the available identifiers without changing the length of the
> field, but it's still a bandaid. Shouldn't a "good DB designer" be
> wondering abou that "9" in the field definition?

It would be fairly straightforward to change it to a char(10) in the
future if necessary, wouldn't it?

Paul.

26 Aug 2005 2:45 PM

AK

changing a varchar(9) to varchar(10) is supposed to be a snap.
I would not be that optimistic about a change from char(9) to char(10)

27 Aug 2005 5:59 AM

David Cressey

"AK" <AK_TIREDOFSPAM@hotmail.COM> wrote in message
news:1125067534.738108.209370@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> changing a varchar(9) to varchar(10) is supposed to be a snap.
> I would not be that optimistic about a change from char(9) to char(10)
>

This is DBMS dependent. In Rdb/VMS you can make such an alteration without
so much as closing the database.
The lock manager serializes it just like any other change.