Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference?

> Were those fields populated just like the varchar fields? If not, then
> the test proves little. If so, I find it hard to believe that char(x)
> would be any faster than varchar. They're all handled about the same.

Hi Scott,

Yes, the new table was populated from the data from the original, via
a:

INSERT INTO emails2 SELECT * FROM emails;

This should be correct, yes?

> If you want to do count(*) on the table, do it by having a table with
> nothing but IDs in it that is referenced by the table with all the
> text. PostgreSQL can't really optimized aggregate functions with
> indexes, so it always winds up doing seq scans.

I have also tried doing a count(column) on the emails table, using a
column that is indexed. It showed no improvement - I would have
expected at least a little gain. And here's the clincher - when I do
a count(*) on a different table with the same number of rows but only
four varchar columns, it returns the result in 75ms. (!!!)

Benny

--
"Oh, the Jedis are going to feel this one!" -- Professor Farnsworth,
"Futurama"