Re: What is impact of "varchar_opts"?

From: Edson Richter <edsonrichter(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: What is impact of "varchar_opts"?
Date: 2013-01-21 19:25:45
Message-ID: BLU0-SMTP1199068F328D7EF98021D2ECF170@phx.gbl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Em 21/01/2013 17:18, Tom Lane escreveu:
> Edson Richter <edsonrichter(at)hotmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I'm wondering why "varchar_opts" is not default operator class for all
>> indexed varchar field.
> varchar has no operators of its own; it just relies on the operators for
> type text. Therefore text_ops is the formally correct choice. The
> varchar_ops opclass is just an alias that's there so we don't get bug
> reports from pedants who expect varchar to have a varchar_ops opclass.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
I see. So, what is the overhead of having text_ops in opclass?
Can I define it as default for all my indexes when textual type of any kind?

Thanks,

Edson

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-01-21 19:27:34 Re: Yet Another Timestamp Question: Time Defaults
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-01-21 19:18:09 Re: What is impact of "varchar_opts"?