Re: char(N), varchar(N), varchar, text

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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