Char Versus Varchar2

[zik]

During a conversation with a coworker, I was told that it is BETTER to use varchar2(1) than to user char1(1).
Can someone please shed some light into this.
Thanks in advance.
zik

 

[rcurva]

VARCHAR2 is better than CHAR, storage-wise because no space will be padded in varchar2 when full lenght is not utilized, but VARCHAR2(1) and CHAR(1) will always be the same because no space will be padded since you only have two value options for char, a single character value and a null.
Robbie

"The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided" -- Art of War

 

[zik]

Thank you rcurva!
That was precisely my argument.
Thanks for reimforcing that.
zik

 

[uepjp]

Not strictly true. Varchar2(1) will use more space than char(1), since it is variable length Oracle will store the length in the row header in 3 bytes, instead of the 1 byte row header used by char(1). So varchar2 will be stored in minimum of 3 bytes, as apposed to the 2 used by char. However, Oracle are phasing out the use of char & recommend that varchar2 is used.

uepjp