Difference between BYTE and CHAR in column datatypes

sql

data-integrity

utf-8

schema-design

byAlex Kataev·Jul 22, 2024

The BYTE versus CHAR showdown revolves around character encoding and storage space. When setting your sights on BYTE, you're allocating storage per byte—perfect for dealing with single-byte encoding like ASCII where it's a one-to-one character-byte matchup. VARCHAR2(10 BYTE) can tolerate any combination of ten bytes. Now, enter CHAR, the considerate cousin of BYTE - it allows a specific number of characters, regardless of their byte consumption. Opt for VARCHAR2(10 CHAR), and you're permitting exactly ten characters, regardless of their hunger for bytes. A simple SQL demonstration:

-- BYTE: putting bytes on a diet
CREATE TABLE bytewise (name VARCHAR2(10 BYTE));

-- CHAR: Feeding enough bytes to characters in the buffet
CREATE TABLE charwise (name VARCHAR2(10 CHAR));

While BYTE is on a data diet, CHAR caters to the varying appetite of characters. Your choice relies on the diversity of characters you anticipate in your data.

Handling UTF-8: Handle with care

When dealing with datatypes, you must comprehend the implications of multi-byte characters such as those in UTF-8 encoding. A single UTF-8 character may demand up to 4 bytes. So betting on BYTE might backfire in environments dealing with international characters sets. To protect your data from truncation or loss, opt for CHAR—it assures enough room for characters, irrespective of their byte size.

UTF-8 and Storage: When dealing with UTF-8, VARCHAR2 defined with CHAR should be your weapon of choice.
Schema Design Efficiency: Remember to accommodate your characters' byte-size in schema design; it's crucial for ultimate efficiency.

Selecting BYTE or CHAR: When and why

Following guidelines can assist you in choosing between BYTE and CHAR:

Uniform Data: BYTE is your comrade when dealing with data having predictable byte size—especially when space efficiency is paramount.
Support for Many Languages: Use CHAR when dealing with multiple languages to ensure no unpleasant surprises with storage.
Performance Considerations: BYTE might outperform CHAR due to less data to process - ideal for performance-intensive applications.

Impact on SQL operations: Not just about storage!

Choosing between BYTE and CHAR is not just about storage; it impacts your SQL operations:

Orderly Sorting: CHAR enables consistent sorting, accounting for character alignment despite byte size. In contrast, BYTE sorts based on byte sequences leading to unexpected results, particularly with multi-byte characters.
Search and Indexing: CHAR-based columns can offer more reliable indexing for queries as they consider character boundaries, not mere byte offsets.
Data Integrity: With CHAR, you can avoid data integrity issues as it respects character boundaries. However, with BYTE, a multi-byte character might get truncated due to byte limitations.

Real-world scenarios: Why does all this matter?

Here are some practical contexts to further understand the significance of this decision:

International User Base: If your application is international, go CHAR. It ensures easier handling of names and text written in different language scripts.
Data Migration: CHAR offers consistent storage for characters, which means smoother data migration between systems that might use different character encodings.
Performance Tuning: Despite CHAR offering predictability in character storage, BYTE might be most suitable for ASCII-only systems with stringent performance needs.

Applying these insights to real-world scenarios will guide you in choosing between BYTE and CHAR wisely.

explain-codes / Sql / Difference between BYTE and CHAR in column datatypes

Linked

What are the use cases for selecting CHAR over VARCHAR in SQL?



"data too long for column" - why?



Sql NVARCHAR and VARCHAR Limits



Querying WHERE condition to character length?



Best database field type for a URL