| From: | Emi Lu <emilu(at)encs(dot)concordia(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Size or efficiency differences "varchar(128) vs. varchar(32)" |
| Date: | 2008-07-21 16:59:02 |
| Message-ID: | 4884C056.1050803@encs.concordia.ca |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Sorry, forgot to replay all.
> Emi Lu wrote:
>
>> May I know does varchar(128) and varchar(32) will cause any size or
>> efficiency differences?
>
> None at all.
Basically, there is no efficiency differences at all, if I know a column
is now varchar(32) but could be potentially increased to length(col)>32
in the future, I will setup to varchar(128).
This column will be setup as varchar(128) everywhere so that foreign key
constraints will work.
I had thought "foreign constraint, query or indexes" on varchar(32)
could be more efficient than varchar(128) and I was wrong.
I will use varchar(128) for my column.
Thanks a lot!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Milan Oparnica | 2008-07-21 20:45:36 | Re: PERSISTANT PREPARE (another point of view) |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-07-21 16:17:04 | Re: Size or efficiency differences "varchar(128) vs. varchar(32)" |