| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Nolan <nolan(at)gw(dot)tssi(dot)com> |
| Cc: | chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au (Christopher Kings-Lynne), pg(at)rbt(dot)ca (Rod Taylor), josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com (Josh Berkus), wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com (Bill Moran), threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org (Jeff), pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org (Postgresql Performance) |
| Subject: | Re: Fixed width rows faster? |
| Date: | 2004-03-06 05:53:49 |
| Message-ID: | 14335.1078552429@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:
>> Can't you just create a TEXT(255) field same as you can just create
>> VARCHAR (with no length) field? I think they're basically synonyms for
>> each other these days.
> I'll defer to the SQL standard gurus on this, as well as to the internals
> guys, but I suspect there is a difference between the standard itself
> and implementor details, such as how char, varchar, varchar2 and text
> are implemented. As long as things work as specified, I don't think
> the standard cares much about what's happening behind the curtain.
TEXT is not a standard datatype at all; that is, you will not find it
in the standard, even though quite a few DBMSes have a datatype that
they call by that name.
Postgres' interpretation of TEXT is that there is no length-limitation
option. I don't know what other DBMSes do with their versions of TEXT.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-03-06 10:01:18 | Re: Fixed width rows faster? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-06 05:42:19 | Re: Fixed width rows faster? |