| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Grega Jesih <Grega(dot)Jesih(at)actual-it(dot)si> |
| Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, "grega(dot)jesih(at)gmail(dot)com" <grega(dot)jesih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Docs <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: text fields and performance for ETL |
| Date: | 2021-11-03 17:37:28 |
| Message-ID: | 137264.1635961048@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Grega Jesih <Grega(dot)Jesih(at)actual-it(dot)si> writes:
>> The goal in our docs is to point out that using an arbitrary length specification is not required in PostgreSQL.
> Well perhaps yours. But there are pro-tools (I refer to SSIS in this context) that provide a very fast dataflow in case there is a known record size.
That's a matter for those tools to document, not us, because it's their
performance characteristics that you are talking about, not ours.
I'll just point out in passing, though, that "fixed record size" for text
strings is an illusion as soon as you have to deal with non-ASCII data.
So I'm skeptical that such optimizations are worth much anymore.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Grega Jesih | 2021-11-03 18:09:28 | Re: text fields and performance for ETL |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-11-03 16:00:20 | Re: text fields and performance for ETL |