| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Grega Jesih <Grega(dot)Jesih(at)actual-it(dot)si>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Docs <pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: text fields and performance for ETL |
| Date: | 2021-11-05 15:27:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20211105152733.GC19812@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 07:32:12AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Friday, November 5, 2021, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Perhaps, right before the tip you quoted, something like that:
> >
> > If your use case requires a length limit on character data, or
> compliance
> > with the SQL standard is important, use "character varying".
> > Otherwise, you are usually better off with "text".
>
> I can support that if others think it is valuable.
>
>
>
> The motivating complaint is that we should be encouraging people to use varchar
> (4000) instead of text so external tools can optimize. If we are not going to
> do that I really don’t see the pointing in changing away from out current
> position of “only use text”. True length limit requirements for data are rare,
> and better done in constraints along with all other the other constraint that
> may exist for the data. I believe comments with respect to the SQL standard
> are already present and adequate.
Agreed.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2021-11-06 05:27:35 | Re: text fields and performance for ETL |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-11-05 14:32:12 | Re: text fields and performance for ETL |