| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, Darren Ferguson <darren(at)crystalballinc(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Are globally defined constants possible at all ? |
| Date: | 2002-06-09 16:12:04 |
| Message-ID: | 5885.1023639124@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> ... I still can't see how use of CHECK makes the mapping from a textual type
> to integer.
It doesn't. The point people are making is that storing a (short) text
string is a perfectly respectable way to do this.
If you're feeling a compulsion to micro-optimize, though, I'd recommend
the trick I used to use: use datatype "char" (note the quotes). This is
*one* byte on disk, even smaller than integer, and you can still choose
characters with some mnemonic value for your different states. This
method works pretty well up to a dozen or two possible states, after
which it starts to get hard to choose values; but beyond that point
I'd think a separate table is the way to go anyway.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Darren Ferguson | 2002-06-09 17:03:03 | Re: Are globally defined constants possible at all ? |
| Previous Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2002-06-09 15:48:28 | Re: Are globally defined constants possible at all ? |