MySQL: Why use VARCHAR(20) instead of VARCHAR(255)? [duplicate]

Answer 1

There are many valid reasons for choosing a value smaller than the maximum that are not related to performance. Setting a size helps indicate the type of data you are storing and also can also act as a last-gasp form of validation.

For instance, if you are storing a UK postcode then you only need 8 characters. Setting this limit helps make clear the type of data you are storing. If you chose 255 characters it would just confuse matters.

Answer 2

I don't know about mySQL but in SQL Server it will let you define fields such that the total number of bytes used is greater than the total number of bytes that can actually be stored in a record. This is a bad thing. Sooner or later you will get a row where the limit is reached and you cannot insert the data.

It is far better to design your database structure to consider row size limits.

Additionally yes, you do not want people to put 200 characters in a field where the maximum value should be 10. If they do, it is almost always bad data.

You say, well I can limit that at the application level. But data does not get into the database just from one application. Sometimes multiple applications use it, sometimes data is imported and sometimes it is fixed manually from the query window (update all the records to add 10% to the price for instance). If any of these other sources of data don't know about the rules you put in your application, you will have bad, useless data in your database. Data integrity must be enforced at the database level (which doesn't stop you from also checking before you try to enter data) or you have no integrity. Plus it has been my experience that people who are too lazy to design their database are often also too lazy to actually put the limits into the application and there is no data integrity check at all.

They have a word for databases with no data integrity - useless.

Answer 3

From a database perspective performance wise I do not believe there is going to be a difference.

However, I think a lot of the decision on the length to use comes down to what you are trying to accomplish and documenting the system to accept just the data that it needs.

Answer 4

There is a semantical difference (and I believe that's the only difference): if you try to fill 30 non-space characters into varchar(20), it will produce an error, whereas it will succeed for varchar(255). So it is primarily an additional constraint.

Answer 5

Well, if you want to allow for a larger entry, or limit the entry size perhaps.

For example, you may have first_name as a VARCHAR 20, but perhaps street_address as a VARCHAR 50 since 20 may not be enough space. At the same time, you may want to control how large that value can get.

In other words, you have set a ceiling of how large a particular value can be, in theory to prevent the table (and potentially the index/index entries) from getting too large.

You could just use CHAR which is a fixed width as well, but unlike VARCHAR which can be smaller, CHAR pads the values (although this makes for quicker SQL access.

Answer 6

Check out: Reference for Varchar

In short there isn't much difference unless you go over the size of 255 in your VARCHAR which will require another byte for the length prefix.

The length indicates more of a constraint on the data stored in the column than anything else. This inherently constrains the MAXIMUM storage size for the column as well. IMHO, the length should make sense with respect to the data. If your storing a Social Security # it makes no sense to set the length to 128 even though it doesn't cost you anything in storage if all you actually store is an SSN.