Re: Generic design: char vs varchar primary keys

From: Jasen Betts <jasen(at)xnet(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Generic design: char vs varchar primary keys
Date: 2011-08-05 12:40:19
Message-ID: j1gobj$m5j$1@reversiblemaps.ath.cx
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

On 2011-08-03, Raj Mathur (=?utf-8?b?4KSw4KS+4KSc?= =?utf-8?b?IOCkruCkvuCkpeClgeCksA==?=) <raju(at)linux-delhi(dot)org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can you point me to any pages that explain the difference between using,
> say CHAR(8) vs VARCHAR(8) as the primary key for a table? Is there any
> impact on the database in terms of:

look in the data types chapter of the manual

> - Speed of indexed retrieval
> - Speed of join from a referencing table
> - Storage (I presume VARHAR(8) would have a slight edge, in general)
> - Any other issue

Unless you need the padding, and/or the length constraints use text.

("usr/share/doc/postgresql-doc-8.4/html/datatype-character.html")

. Tip: There is no performance difference among these three types,
. apart from increased storage space when using the blank-padded type,
. and a few extra CPU cycles to check the length when storing into a
. length-constrained column. While character(n) has performance
. advantages in some other database systems, there is no such advantage
. in PostgreSQL; in fact character(n) is usually the slowest of the
. three because of its additional storage costs. In most situations text
. or character varying should be used instead.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

In response to

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jasen Betts 2011-08-05 12:43:48 Re: Generic design: char vs varchar primary keys
Previous Message Gnanakumar 2011-08-05 09:07:08 Re: Calculating relative time/distance from CURRENT_TIMESTAMP