composite type vs table

From: Marek Lewczuk <newsy(at)lewczuk(dot)com>
To: Lista dyskusyjna pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: composite type vs table
Date: 2008-02-18 12:14:37
Message-ID: 47B976AD.5030806@lewczuk.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Hi,
I'm using composite types within my database and I sometimes need to
modify type either by adding new column or e.g. renaming a column. Of
course I can't do that on existing composite type (actually I can, but
that is quite complicated) so maybe I should use table instead ? With
tables (that are composite types too) I can do many operations, that are
not available for composite type. I would like to ask, whether there are
any disadvantages (e.g. performance) of using tables instead composite
types (comparing only those functionality that is available for
composite types) ?

Regards,
ML

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kakoli Sen 2008-02-18 12:15:05 Initdb failed in PostgreSQL 7.3.21
Previous Message T.J. Adami 2008-02-18 12:08:09 Re: Order of SUBSTR and UPPER in statement