<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" I think it would probably cost you space. There is an overhead associated with a VARLEN (can't recall how big but certainly likely to be at least 16 bytes) plus the Varlen field has a 2 byte length header. This is a case where switching to Varlen should not be done for space saving reasons. In fact I would tend to use the full length as the reserve i.e VARLEN(30). I am still waiting to see any real evidence of this - even though it is the sexy thing to do right now. In most cases I've looked at, while the ..."^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/201407/msg00846.html>