Re: DWH varchar2(4000)
- From: Laimutis.Nedzinskas@xxxxxx
- To: ricard.martinez@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:15:54 +0200
What about "ORA-01450: maximum key length (6398 - or more, depends on block
size) exceeded" when indexing such columns ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
From: Ricard Martinez <ricard.martinez@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Date: 2014.12.22 17:03
Subject: DWH varchar2(4000)
Sent by: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi list,
We have a DWH database on 11.2.0.4.
The developers/data modelers are creating all the tables with varchar2
(4000) as standard by default. They don't care if they just insert 10
bytes, 200 or nothing.
When asked about why this standard is in place, the answer is just: "Just
in case we need it".
For my point of view this is not a good practice, as can cause memory waste
on client applications, as well as data garbage or errors like ORA-01450:
maximum key length (3218) exceeded.
But as i'm not a DWH expert, maybe im missing information that proves that
this is really a good practice, and not just a laziness way of working.
I will be glad to know your opinion, or point me to any doc/test that
proves me wrong, in order to learn about this.
Thanks
Other related posts:
