visual studio 2017 sql server edit top 200

I can imaging simple cases when it would be fine, but this is not enough reason for doing that. Mind you, I am not saying this will never work. I'll just say, if you want to stay out of trouble, you can analyze all possible outcomes from the schema you are suggesting (I'm not trying to convince you that you should believe just my words) and come to the same conclusion I did. I don't really want to argue much about it. I really used to experiment with the scenarios when change of selection is prevented (more exactly, not that but prevention of focus shift, but these different scenarios have a lot in common or could be combined). 0x1300 = offset to end of column (2 bytes).Variable length column offset array (4 bytes) 0x0400 = offset of null bitmap (2 bytes).Not sure why you are seeing a record length of 20 but this 19-byte record is broken down as below per per Paul Randal's article: Slot 0 Column 1 Offset 0xb Length 8 Length (physical) 8

Record Type = PRIMARY_RECORD Record Attributes = NULL_BITMAP VARIABLE_COLUMNS INSERT INTO sp_executesql N'DBCC 1, 1) WITH int, = PagePID INSERT INTO dbo.Example (Column1) VALUES('Record-1') IF OBJECT_ID(N'dbo.Example', 'U') IS NOT NULL I ran the script below and see a record size of 19: The physical record size includes overhead as described in. I though you were asking about the physical column data type size rather than record size because of the title of you question.

Visual studio 2017 sql server edit top 200