Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I am optimizing some innodb tables in MySQL, so I ran procedure analsye() to see what the recommendations were.
The results recommended tinytext instead of varchar(255) for all the fields that were previously set up as varchar(255)
Is there a performance gain to be had by using tinytext? I am only concerned about speed here, not size.
Don’t believe if anyone tells you that TINYTEXT is stored in other way, than VARCHAR.
The actual differences are:
TINYTEXT and other TEXT fields are stored separately from in-memory row inside MySQL heap, whereas VARCHAR() fields add up to 64k limit (so you can have more than 64k in TINYTEXTs, whereas you won’t with VARCHAR).
TINYTEXT and other ‘blob-like’ fields will force SQL layer (MySQL) to use on-disk temporary tables whenever they are used, whereas VARCHAR will be still sorted ‘in memory’ (though will be converted to CHAR for the full width).
InnoDB internally doesn’t really care whether it is tinytext or varchar. It is very easy to verify, create two tables, one with VARCHAR(255), another with TINYINT, and insert a record to both. They both will take single 16k page – whereas if overflow pages are used, TINYTEXT table should show up as taking at least 32k in ‘SHOW TABLE STATUS’.
I usually prefer VARCHAR(255) – they don’t cause too much of heap fragmentation for single row, and can be treated as single 64k object in memory inside MySQL. On InnoDB size differences are negligible.