Re: Datatype sizes; a space and speed issue?

> We used to have some attempts at optimizing on the assumption that
> char(n) fields were physically fixed-width, but we gave it up as a
> bad job several major releases back ... it was never more than a
> very marginal optimization anyway ...

Does that mean that PostGreSQL fixes character width at thirty-two bits,
or that it uses UTF-8, or that it just stores what it gets?

(Checked chapter 8.3 in the manual, didn't see the answer there. Not
that I really want to know. With Unicode, trying to optimize record
sizes for char/text fields is a little like trying to play Russian
Roulette. Wait, is that no longer politically correct? Should it be
called six-chamber roulette, now? Don't want to offend anyone.)

--
Joel Matthew <rees(at)ddcom(dot)co(dot)jp>