Re: Fixed width rows faster?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Mike Nolan <nolan(at)gw(dot)tssi(dot)com>
Cc: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com (Bill Moran), threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org (Jeff), pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fixed width rows faster?
Date: 2004-03-06 05:42:19
Message-ID: 14231.1078551739@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Mike Nolan <nolan(at)gw(dot)tssi(dot)com> writes:
>> Frankly, the only reason to use anything other than TEXT is
>> compatibility with other databases and applications.

> You don't consider a requirement that a field be no longer than a
> certain length a reason not to use TEXT?

If you have an actual business-logic requirement to restrict a field to
no more than N characters, then by all means use varchar(N); that's
what it's for. But I agree with what I think Josh meant: there is very
seldom any non-broken reason to have a hard upper limit on string
lengths. If you think you need varchar(N) you should stop and ask
why exactly. If you cannot give a specific, coherent reason why the
particular value of N that you're using is the One True Length for the
field, then you really need to think twice.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-03-06 05:53:49 Re: Fixed width rows faster?
Previous Message Mike Nolan 2004-03-06 04:32:14 Re: Fixed width rows faster?