I am talking about coded values, like Status = 'A', 'B' or 'C'
Taking double the space for this stuff is a waste of resources and nobody usually cares about extended characters here in English language systems at least they just want something more readable than integers when querying and debugging the data. End users will see longer descriptions joined from code tables or from app caches which can have unicode.
How do you store them? Also enums are not user configurable normally. It would be a good feature to have them, but they don't work well in many cases.
Typical code tables with code, description and anything else needed for that value which the user can configure in the app.
Sure you can use integers instead of codes, now all your results look like 1, 2, 3, 4 for all your coded columns when trying to debug or write ad-hoc stuff. Also ints are not variable length so your wasting space for short codes and you have to know ahead time if its only going to be 1,2,4 or 8 bytes.
For configurable values, obviously you use a table. But those should have an auto-integer primary key and if you need the description, join for it.
Ints are by far more the efficient way to store and query these values -- the length of the string is stored as an int and variable length values really complicate storage and access. If you think strings save space or time that is not right.
In the systems I work with most coded values are user configurable.
>But those should have an auto-integer primary key and if you need the description, join for it.
Not ergonomic now when querying data or debugging things like postal state are 11 instead of 'NY'
select * from addresses where state = 11, no thanks.
Your whole results set becomes a bunch of ints that can be easily transposed causing silly errors. Of course I have seen systems that use guids to avoid collision, boy is that fun, just use varchar or char if your penny pinching and ok with fixed sizes.
>the length of the string is stored as an int
No it's stored as a smallint 2 bytes. So a single character code is 3 bytes rather than a 4 byte int. 2 chars is the same as an int. They do not complicate storage access in any meaningful way.
You could use smallint or tinyint for your primary key and I could use char(2) and char(1) and get readable codes if I wanted to really save space.
> They do not complicate storage access in any meaningful way.
Sure they do, because now your row / index is variable length rather than fixed length. Way more complicated. Even 3 bytes is way more complicated to deal with than 4 bytes.
> select * from addresses where state = 11, no thanks.
I will agree that isn't fun. Is it still the trade off I do make? Absolutely. And it's not really that big of a problem; I just do a join. It also helps prevent people from using codes instead of querying the database for the correct value -- what's the point of user-configuration of someone hard-codes 'NY' in a query or in the code.
>Sure they do, because now your row / index is variable length rather than fixed length. Way more complicated.
Come on its literally a 2 byte per column header in the row so it just sums the column lengths to get the offset, it does the same thing for fixed length except it gets the col length from the schema.
It's not much more complicated than a fixed length column only the column length is stored in row vs schema. I am not sure where you are getting this idea it way more complicated, nor the 3 vs 4 byte thing, the whole row is a variable length structure and designed as such, null values change the row length fixed or variable data type and have to be accounted for since a null takes up no space in the column data its only in the null bitmap.
> what's the point of user-configuration of someone hard-codes 'NY' in a query or in the code
Because it doesn't matter, 'NY' isn't changing just like 11 the int wouldn't change, but 'NY' is way easier to understand and catch mistakes with and search for code without hitting a bunch of nonsense and distinguish when 10 columns are all coded next to each other in a result set.
I prefer my rows to be a little more readable than 1234, 1, 11, 2, 15, 1 ,3 and the users do too.
I have had my fill of transposition bugs where someone accidentally uses the wrong int on a pk id from a different table and still gets a valid but random result that passes a foreign key check almost enough for me to want to use guid's for pk's almost. At least with the coded values it is easier to spot because even with single character code people tend to pick things that make sense for the column values you know 'P' for pending, 'C' for complete etc, vs 1 2 3 4 used over and over across every different column with an auto increment.
You're the one saying a 2 character string is somehow a space savings. If we're going to split hairs that finely then you have to know that any row with a variable length string makes the entire row/index variable length and that is a net storage and performance loss. It's worse in every way than a simple integer. I will admit that it ultimately doesn't matter. But I'd also argue using an nvarchar in place of varchar for this also doesn't matter. It's not just premature optimization it's practically useless optimization.
> Because it doesn't matter, 'NY' isn't changing just like 11 the int wouldn't change, but 'NY
That's not what happens but what happens is that somebody renames New York to New Eburacum and now your code doesn't match the value and it just adds more confusion.
But I'll grant you that it's totally fine. It's even more fine if you don't use varchar and instead use char(x).
>You're the one saying a 2 character string is somehow a space savings. If we're going to split hairs that finely then you have to know that any row with a variable length string makes the entire row/index variable length and that is a net storage and performance loss.
The row is always variable lengths as a structure it has flags noting how many columns there are with values and if there is a variable length section or not, only rows with no variable length fields at all has no variable length section and that is a bit flag check in the header.
You are making a non argument, variable length fields can be a space savings over an int with single char codes which is very common, and do not impact performance in any meaningful way. Besides that one could use fixed length chars and still get the other benefits I mentioned while having the same exact space usage and processing as a fixed length ints.
>That's not what happens but what happens is that somebody renames New York to New Eburacum
Changing the descriptive meaning of an entry causes all sorts of problems and even more so if it is a int because it's completely opaque its much harder to see an issue in the system because everything is a bunch of ints that do not correlate in any way to their meaning.
Changing the description to something that has the same meaning worded differently is usually not an issue and still gives good debug visibility to the value. If you and your users consider New Eburacum synonymous with New York, then having the code stay 'NY' should not be an issue and still be obvious when querying the data.
Unless someone is using the short code in a user visible way and it has to be updated. State is a common one that does this and nobody is changing state names or codes because it is a common settled natural key.
In the rare situation this actually needed to be done then one can update existing data, this is a not an issue in practice. You have the be extremely cautious updating the description of a code because much data was entered under the previous description and the meaning that it carries, having the code have some human meaning makes it more obvious to maintainers this should be done with care, many times it would involve deprecating the old one and making a new one with a different code because they have different meanings, having a table instead of a enum allows other columns to have this metadata.
This is not the same issue as say using a SSN for a person ID.
Clam down, I am not suggesting using this for actual domain entity keys, these are used in place of enums and have their advantages. I have doing this a long time and it has not bit me, I have also seen many other system designed this way as well working just fine.
Using an incrementing surrogate key for say postal state code serves no purpose other than making things harder to use and debug. Most systems have many code values such as this and using surrogate key would lead to a bunch of overlapping hard to distinguish int data that leads to all sorts of issues.
Mostly agree separate tables can have multiple attributes besides a text description and can be exposed for modification to the application easily so users or administrators can add and modify codes.
A common extra attribute for a coded value is something for deprecation / soft delete, so that it can be marked as no longer valid for future data but existing data can remain with that code, also date ranges its valid for etc, also parent child code relationships.
Enums would be a good feature but they have a much more limited use case for static values you know ahead of time that will have no other attributes and values cannot be removed even if never used or old data migrated to new values.
Common real world codes like US postal state can take advantage of there being agreed upon codes such as 'NY' and 'New York'.
While I generally would prefer lookup tables, it's much easier to sell dev teams on "it looks and acts like a string - you don't have to change anything."
Taking double the space for this stuff is a waste of resources and nobody usually cares about extended characters here in English language systems at least they just want something more readable than integers when querying and debugging the data. End users will see longer descriptions joined from code tables or from app caches which can have unicode.