From: | "Pierre Thibaudeau" <pierdeux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | varchar(n) VS text |
Date: | 2007-06-26 03:59:54 |
Message-ID: | 74b035bb0706252059s55fb0c5i49417e3d034e0091@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Having read http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.2/interactive/datatype-character.html
I am puzzling over this issue:
1) Is there ever ANY reason to prefer "varchar(n)" to "text" as a column type?
2) For instance, if I know that a character-type column will never
contain more than 300 characters, would I be better to define it as
"varchar(300)" or as "text"?
3) What if, in practice that same column usually contains strings of
no more than 10 characters (although I can't guarantee that it
wouldn't explode up to 300 in the one-in-a-million case)?
4) On the other hand, what if a column systematically contains strings
of 5 or fewer characters. Is it better to define it as "varchar(5)"
or as "text"?
From my reading of the dataype documentation, the ONLY reason I can
think of for using "varchar(n)" would be in order to add an extra
data-type constraint to the column.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ben | 2007-06-26 04:06:34 | Re: varchar(n) VS text |
Previous Message | Mikko Partio | 2007-06-26 03:58:20 | Re: data partitions across different nodes |