The CHAR and VARCHAR types
are similar, but differ in the way they are stored and
retrieved. They also differ in maximum length and in whether
trailing spaces are retained. No lettercase conversion takes
place during storage or retrieval.
The CHAR and VARCHAR types
are declared with a length that indicates the maximum number of
characters you want to store. For example,
CHAR(30) can hold up to 30 characters.
The length of a CHAR column is fixed to the
length that you declare when you create the table. The length
can be any value from 0 to 255. When CHAR
values are stored, they are right-padded with spaces to the
specified length. When CHAR values are
retrieved, trailing spaces are removed.
Values in VARCHAR columns are variable-length
strings. The length can be specified as a value from 0 to
65,535. (The maximum effective length of a
VARCHAR is determined by the maximum row size
and the character set used. The maximum column length is subject
to a row size of 65,532 bytes.)
In contrast to CHAR,
VARCHAR values are stored using only as many
characters as are needed, plus one byte to record the length
(two bytes for columns that are declared with a length longer
than 255).
VARCHAR values are not padded when they are
stored. Trailing spaces are retained when values are stored and
retrieved, in conformance with standard SQL.
If you assign a value to a CHAR or
VARCHAR column that exceeds the column's
maximum length, the value is truncated to fit. If the truncated
characters are not spaces, a warning is generated. For
truncation of non-space characters, you can cause an error to
occur (rather than a warning) and suppress insertion of the
value by using strict SQL mode. See
Section 5.2.6, “SQL Modes”.
The following table illustrates the differences between
CHAR and VARCHAR by
showing the result of storing various string values into
CHAR(4) and VARCHAR(4)
columns:
| Value | CHAR(4) |
Storage Required | VARCHAR(4) |
Storage Required |
'' |
' ' |
4 bytes | '' |
1 byte |
'ab' |
'ab ' |
4 bytes | 'ab' |
3 bytes |
'abcd' |
'abcd' |
4 bytes | 'abcd' |
5 bytes |
'abcdefgh' |
'abcd' |
4 bytes | 'abcd' |
5 bytes |
Note that the values shown as stored in the last row of the table apply only when not using strict mode; if MySQL is running in strict mode, values that exceed the column length are not stored, and an error results.
If a given value is stored into the CHAR(4)
and VARCHAR(4) columns, the values retrieved
from the columns are not always the same because trailing spaces
are removed from CHAR columns upon retrieval.
The following example illustrates this difference:
mysql>CREATE TABLE vc (v VARCHAR(4), c CHAR(4));Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.01 sec) mysql>INSERT INTO vc VALUES ('ab ', 'ab ');Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec) mysql>SELECT CONCAT('(', v, ')'), CONCAT('(', c, ')') FROM vc;+---------------------+---------------------+ | CONCAT('(', v, ')') | CONCAT('(', c, ')') | +---------------------+---------------------+ | (ab ) | (ab) | +---------------------+---------------------+ 1 row in set (0.06 sec)
Values in CHAR and VARCHAR
columns are sorted and compared according to the character set
collation assigned to the column.
Note that all MySQL collations are of type
PADSPACE. This means that all
CHAR and VARCHAR values in
MySQL are compared without regard to any trailing spaces. For
example:
mysql>CREATE TABLE names (myname CHAR(10), yourname VARCHAR(10));Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.09 sec) mysql>INSERT INTO names VALUES ('Monty ', 'Monty ');Query OK, 1 row affected (0.00 sec) mysql>SELECT myname = 'Monty ', yourname = 'Monty ' FROM names;+--------------------+----------------------+ | myname = 'Monty ' | yourname = 'Monty ' | +--------------------+----------------------+ | 1 | 1 | +--------------------+----------------------+ 1 row in set (0.00 sec)
Note that this is true for all MySQL versions, and that it is not affected by the server SQL mode.
For those cases where trailing pad characters are stripped or
comparisons ignore them, if a column has an index that requires
unique values, inserting into the column values that differ only
in number of trailing pad characters will result in a
duplicate-key error. For example, if a table contains
'a', an attempt to store
'a ' causes a duplicate-key error.

User Comments
Section 7.4.2, linked here: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Data_size.html
says to use varchar if you want to keep table size down and char if you want to make searches faster (fourth bullet down).
Of course, the first bullet says that the way to make things faster is to keep table size down.
In response to the above comment (about CHAR vs. VARCHAR performance), I think the explanation is that if your query can't operate solely with a table's indicies/keys (most large, complex queries can't) then table size is the primary factor for search speed, especially if the table is very large (if it's so large it has to be read off disk each time it is searched, then disk is almost certainly going to be the bottleneck, and the search speed will be directly proportional to the total data size). In addition, if the database is able to narrow down the query to a subset of rows using indicies/keys but then has to read in each row to check it against other factors, the total size is still a consideration, but so is the fact that if each row is of a variable size, finding the rows incurs some overhead.
Overall I have found that size is by far the most important factor in terms of performance so I always use VARCHAR over CHAR, however if you have a small and simple table you may want to consider using CHAR since it will make the database's job of finding rows and columns easier. If this table is likely to stay in RAM, using CHAR may provide an improvement in performance, since total size is no longer such an issue (although obviously the smaller your tables the less RAM is needed to cache them, but this applies mostly to your large table, small ones are usually inconsequential in such terms).
So I'd recommend using CHAR for performance reasons only in specific circumstances where you are CPU bound for relatively simple but frequent queries.
The 'Storage Required' explaination on this page should probably be updated to include a description of multi-bytes fonts in MySQL 4.1.
See: http://mysql.inspire.net.nz/doc/mysql/en/upgrading-from-4-0.html
"Incompatible change: MySQL interprets length specifications in character column definitions in characters..."
With regards to the speed discussion above... yes VARCHAR does keep the size of your database down, but that doesn't necessarily make it faster to search... because CHAR is null-padded, it makes all records the same length so that the database can just skip through the table without having to check the length of each record as it goes. In addition, queries are not performed on the null-padded part of the CHAR and so the actual number of bytes searched is no more than for a VARCHAR. There's trade off between disk time for CHAR and size-checking for VARCHAR, but to be honest I'm not sure it's noticeable on modern machines. So the only real concern is the amount of disk-space used. Personally I prefer not to waste disk space so I use VARCHAR.
Minor typo: In the table comparing CHAR and VARCHAR, the row labelled with value 'ab' shows the value as stored by VARCHAR(4) as 'ab ', rather than 'ab'.
Note that using CHAR will only speed up your access if the whole record is fixed size. That is, if you use any variable size object, you might as well make all of them variable size. You gain no speed by using a CHAR in a table that also contains a VARCHAR.
Keep in mind that defining a column as VARCHAR will only save space if the data in a particular column is variable in length. I've worked on plenty of data sets where data in a given column is fixed in size -- e.g., code values or indicator/flag fields. In these cases, it's more space-efficient to use CHAR. Consider the case of an indicator field where the value is either 'Y' or 'N'. If defined as a CHAR, the field requires only one byte. However, if defined as a VARCHAR, the field requires two bytes. I worked on a multi-terabyte project at Bank of America where the DBAs actually went to the trouble to rebuild some tables that contained numerous flag or indicator fields because the fields were originally defined as VARCHAR(1) instead of CHAR(1).
Add your own comment.