From: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Loren M(dot) Lang" <lorenl(at)alzatex(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Perfomance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TEXT field and Postgresql Perfomance |
Date: | 2005-01-08 05:23:13 |
Message-ID: | 20050108052313.GA3509@winnie.fuhr.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:03:23PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 19:36:47 -0800, "Loren M. Lang" <lorenl(at)alzatex(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Since, according to the postgresql docs, theirs no performance
> > difference between VARCHAR and TEXT, I'm assuming VARCHAR is identical
> > to TEXT entries with a restriction set on the length. And since TEXT
> > can be of any possible size, then they must be stored independently of
>
> No.
>
> > the rest of the table which is probably all stored in a fixed size rows
>
> No, Postgres uses variable length records.
A discussion of TOAST and ALTER TABLE SET STORAGE might be appropriate
here, but I'll defer that to somebody who understands such things
better than me.
--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-08 05:49:07 | Re: TEXT field and Postgresql Perfomance |
Previous Message | Alex Turner | 2005-01-08 05:02:54 | Re: TEXT field and Postgresql Perfomance |