David Data (9/27/2010)
But I am curious as to why a VARCHAR(MAX) string that happens to contain say 100 chars is so much slower that a VARCHAR(100) that does? Its index and length values will have to be 32 bit numbers, but with 32/64 bit CPUs anything shorter tends to be less rather than more efficient anyway. As even a VARCHAR(100) is stored as a variable length string, I would not imagine the memory management issues are much different either. Or are they?
Im not sure. Some folks insist (and maybe rightfully so... I seem to remember such a thing in BOL but don't remember for sure) the VARCHAR(MAX) stays "inrow" under such conditions. To me, it seems like it may not but I've not taken the time to research that to any depth. It would be nice to know for sure but I just don't have the floor space on my dance card right now.
is pronounced ree-bar and is a Modenism for R
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code: Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column.
Although they tell us that they want it real bad, our primary goal is to ensure that we dont actually give it to them that way.
Although change is inevitable, change for the better is not.
Just because you can do something in PowerShell, doesnt mean you should. Helpful Links:
How to post code problemsHow to post performance problemsForum FAQs