sizing

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Clay Teahouse Clay Teahouse
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

sizing

Hi All
If I choose binary data type for my objects, as opposed to varchar, will it result in any saving, and yes, how much?
I know that binary type would be faster to read/write but wanted to see if there will be any saving in storage.

thanks
Clay
ezhuravlev ezhuravlev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sizing

Hi,

What do you mean here? Do you mean binary fields VS varchars? Could you please give an example of the object?

Thank you,
Evgenii

вт, 30 апр. 2019 г. в 12:27, Clay Teahouse <[hidden email]>:
Hi All
If I choose binary data type for my objects, as opposed to varchar, will it result in any saving, and yes, how much?
I know that binary type would be faster to read/write but wanted to see if there will be any saving in storage.

thanks
Clay
Denis Mekhanikov Denis Mekhanikov
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: sizing

Clay,

If you want to store plain strings without any schema or markup, then use varchar.
But if you plan to store POJOs, then binary objects should certainly be used instead of varchar. Binary types contain meta information, improving type safety of stored data.

Binary objects don't apply any compression. This improvement is planned to be implemented on data storage level, not the objects format.

Denis

ср, 1 мая 2019 г. в 19:33, Evgenii Zhuravlev <[hidden email]>:
Hi,

What do you mean here? Do you mean binary fields VS varchars? Could you please give an example of the object?

Thank you,
Evgenii

вт, 30 апр. 2019 г. в 12:27, Clay Teahouse <[hidden email]>:
Hi All
If I choose binary data type for my objects, as opposed to varchar, will it result in any saving, and yes, how much?
I know that binary type would be faster to read/write but wanted to see if there will be any saving in storage.

thanks
Clay