[font="Courier New"]Taylor,

I agree with you that relying on memory and commenting on the post is NOT only difficult but extremely prone to errors. To go back to the actual question, all you have to do is, click "QotD" on the left side of the page, just below "Blogs" and go back few pages to get to July 14 2010 and the question title is "ALTER".

Please re-read the question without any prior bias/assumptions/thoughts word by word and ask yourself which might be correct. Also test the theory with some sample data involving large volumes of data.

In the requirements, it is explicitly stated that increasing the length of the column is the "ONLY change requested" and another tell is to look for the "right and optimal solution".

>>The result of running the answer that is supposed to be correct is the dropping of the NOT NULL constraint in order to alter the table quickly.

>>If the table was originally defined as not allowing nulls, how can an alter allowing nulls be a good choice?

If you look at the question again, I am sure you will come back and might say that your memory was fuzzy and didn't remember the answer options correctly.

The correct answer is quite the opposite of what you are referring above and I will request you to please read the question and the answer options again.

[/font]