varchar(max) MS SQL Server 2000, problems?

bplus picture bplus · Apr 10, 2009 · Viewed 31k times · Source

I've inherited a asp.net website project that currently runs SQL Server 2000 as its backend.

I've been doing some databases changes on a local copy of the db using SQL Server 2005 Express. I've create a table using varchar(max) columns. They are used to stored snippets of XHTML that are of arbitrary length.

While browsing around on stackoverflow I came across this: Are there any disadvantages to always using nvarchar(MAX)?

User mattruma says he found out the "hard way" about using varchar(max) on SQL Server 2000.

What should I use instead of varchar(max) given that the live database runs on SQL Server 2000?

Thanks in advance for any help!

Answer

JoshBerke picture JoshBerke · Apr 10, 2009

VARCHAR(Max) was introduced in SQL Server 2005, and will not work on SQL Server 2000. You need to use either VARCHAR(8000) assuming that will be big enough. Otherwise you will need to use TEXT

Edit

Also if you switch to VARCHAR(8000) keep in mind there is a limit that a single row cannot have more then 8060 bytes. So if you fill up a varchar(8000) table and have a bunch of other large columns you will get an error. This is where Text comes in.

Text has performance implication because by default it is stored in a separate location, and they keep a pointer in a table. There is a set option which changes this behavior so that text types are kept in the table until they reach a certain size. If you have mostly small blobs you might want to enable this.