Re: B-tree index on a VARCHAR(4000) column

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: B-tree index on a VARCHAR(4000) column
Date: 2017-09-08 11:56:12
Message-ID: 19165.1504871772@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> writes:
> Based on LENGTH(offending_column), none of the values are more than 144
> bytes in this 44.2M row table. Even though VARCHAR is, by definition,
> variable length, are there any internal design issues which would make
> things more efficient if it were dropped to, for example, VARCHAR(256)?

No.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2017-09-08 12:50:39 Re: B-tree index on a VARCHAR(4000) column
Previous Message hamann.w 2017-09-08 06:16:20 Re: column names query