| From: | Mike Nolan <nolan(at)gw(dot)tssi(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au (Christopher Kings-Lynne) |
| Cc: | 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 04:32:14 |
| Message-ID: | 200403060432.i264WFCk025069@gw.tssi.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
> >>You don't consider a requirement that a field be no longer than a
> >>certain length a reason not to use TEXT?
>
> 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.
--
Mike Nolan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-06 05:42:19 | Re: Fixed width rows faster? |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-03-06 04:20:29 | Re: Fixed width rows faster? |