> > > Varchar currently (in 6.2.1 and below) takes up the entire length specified
> > > in the definition, despite the fact the value in it may actually be
> > > shorter. Text takes only the space taken by the value.
> > Thanks for the clarification. In this case, what happens with varchar's
> > length if the original definition for that field leaves length undefined?
> > Does it behave like text in that case?
> You really shouldn't be doing that. Not sure what happens. Not a good
> create table test (x varchar);
?? This was defined to be a varchar of unlimited length, much like, or identical
to, text. Should this now be disallowed? If so, we can fix the parser to disallow
it so people don't get misled.
> > I also vaguely recall seeing a message last year about the use of indexes
> > in queries: that in [some circumstances] indexes built on varchar fields
> > don't get used and a sequential scan through all records takes place
> > instead. Is there any distinction between varchar and text here?
> Don't remember that.
This was probably Bruce's improvements to allow indices on some pattern matching.
Doesn't make a distinction between these types in its behavior.
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thomas G. Lockhart||Date: 1998-03-01 21:32:16|
|Subject: Re: [QUESTIONS] varchar vs text|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1998-03-01 21:23:32|
|Subject: Look at pgsql/doc/postgres.tar.gz|