Re: [HACKERS] varchar/char size

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] varchar/char size
Date: 1998-01-08 03:07:13
Message-ID: 34B442E1.E4C6D924@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Does someone want to remind me why we allocate the full size for char()
> and varchar(), when we really can just allocate the size of the given
> string?
> I relize char() has to be padded, but why varchar()?

> In my experience, char() is full size as defined by create, and
> varchar() is the the size of the actual data in the field, like text,
> but with a pre-defined limit.

Well, in many relational databases access can be optimized by having
fixed-length tuple storage structures. Also, it allows re-use of deleted
space in storage pages. It may be that neither of these points have any
bearing on Postgres, and never will, but unless that clearly the case then
I would be inclined to keep the storage scheme as it is currently.

- Tom

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1998-01-08 03:17:50 Re: [HACKERS] varchar/char size
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-01-08 03:03:22 rollback varchar change