From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | "jack" <datactrl(at)tpg(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: please advise on column data type |
Date: | 2002-04-16 04:47:12 |
Message-ID: | 9330.1018932432@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
"Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> In some databases, yes. However, in PostgreSQL, there is no
> performance difference between CHAR, VARCHAR, and TEXT. So use what's
> appropriate for the data being stored.
In fact, char() is probably *worse* than the other alternatives, at
least for data that doesn't have a clearly defined length, because
it forces blank-padding on you.
I'd use char(N) for US postal abbreviations (state = char(2), etc)
and not a lot else. If you have an *error checking* reason to use
char(N), then use it. If you think you are getting a performance
improvement, then you are far out in left field.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Proctor | 2002-04-16 04:49:21 | Re: [SQL] 16 parameter limit |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-04-16 04:36:11 | Re: [PATCHES] [SQL] 16 parameter limit |