From: | Marek Lewczuk <newsy(at)lewczuk(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Lista dyskusyjna pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | composite type vs table |
Date: | 2008-02-18 12:14:37 |
Message-ID: | 47B976AD.5030806@lewczuk.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi,
I'm using composite types within my database and I sometimes need to
modify type either by adding new column or e.g. renaming a column. Of
course I can't do that on existing composite type (actually I can, but
that is quite complicated) so maybe I should use table instead ? With
tables (that are composite types too) I can do many operations, that are
not available for composite type. I would like to ask, whether there are
any disadvantages (e.g. performance) of using tables instead composite
types (comparing only those functionality that is available for
composite types) ?
Regards,
ML
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kakoli Sen | 2008-02-18 12:15:05 | Initdb failed in PostgreSQL 7.3.21 |
Previous Message | T.J. Adami | 2008-02-18 12:08:09 | Re: Order of SUBSTR and UPPER in statement |