From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | emilu(at)encs(dot)concordia(dot)ca |
Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: char(N), varchar(N), varchar, text |
Date: | 2014-10-08 14:30:11 |
Message-ID: | 54354A73.6030607@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 10/08/2014 10:22 AM, Emi Lu wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> For performance point of view, are there big differences between:
> char(N), varchar(N), varchar, text?
>
> Some comments from google shows:
> No difference, under the hood it's all varlena. Check this article
> from Depesz:
> http://www.depesz.com/index.php/2010/03/02/charx-vs-varcharx-vs-varchar-vs-text/
> A couple of highlights:
>
> To sum it all up:
>
> * char(n) – takes too much space when dealing with values
> shorter than n, and can lead to subtle errors because of
> adding trailing spaces, plus it is problematic to change the limit
> * varchar(n) – it's problematic to change the limit in live
> environment
> * varchar – just like text
> * text – for me a winner – over (n) data types because it lacks
> their problems, and over varchar – because it has distinct name
>
> So, can I assume no big performance differences?
> Thanks alot!
> Emi
>
Why do you need to ask if you already have the answer? Depesz is right.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Emi Lu | 2014-10-08 14:42:55 | Re: char(N), varchar(N), varchar, text |
Previous Message | Emi Lu | 2014-10-08 14:22:44 | char(N), varchar(N), varchar, text |