| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Joe <svn(at)freedomcircle(dot)net>, Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Converting MySQL tinyint to PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2005-07-13 03:50:52 |
| Message-ID: | 87vf3fz7mr.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Certainly the idea of not having to store a length word for CHAR(1) fields
> is not going to inspire anyone to invest the effort involved ;-)
That's a pretty big motivation though. Storage space efficiency is a huge
factor in raw sequential scan speed.
Personally I would settle for a fuller set of small fixed size datatypes. The
"char" datatype is pretty much exactly what's needed except that it provides
such a quirky interface.
I'm not sure exactly how to clean it up but if it were more user-friendly (and
had less of an "undocumented internal feature" character to it) I have a
feeling a lot of people would be using for things like flags, state codes,
etc. And it would reduce storage space significantly over having lots of text
or even integer fields.
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-07-13 04:15:03 | Re: Converting MySQL tinyint to PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Matthew Terenzio | 2005-07-13 03:47:36 | Re: current_timestamp - 20 minutes |