From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Pierre Thibaudeau" <pierdeux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: varchar(n) VS text |
Date: | 2007-06-26 04:16:17 |
Message-ID: | 10898.1182831377@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Pierre Thibaudeau" <pierdeux(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I am puzzling over this issue:
> 1) Is there ever ANY reason to prefer "varchar(n)" to "text" as a column type?
In words of one syllable: no.
Not unless you have an application requirement for a specific maximum
length limit (eg, your client code will crash if fed a string longer
than 256 bytes, or there's a genuine data-validity constraint that you
can enforce this way).
Or if you want to have schema-level portability to some other DB that
understands varchar(N) but not text. (varchar(N) is SQL-standard,
while text isn't, so I'm sure there are some such out there.)
> From my reading of the dataype documentation, the ONLY reason I can
> think of for using "varchar(n)" would be in order to add an extra
> data-type constraint to the column.
That is *exactly* what it does. No more and no less. There's no
performance advantage, in fact you can expect to lose a few cycles
to the constraint check.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Summerfield | 2007-06-26 06:40:11 | Re: yet another simple SQL question |
Previous Message | Ben | 2007-06-26 04:06:34 | Re: varchar(n) VS text |