From: | Raymond O'Donnell <rod(at)iol(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | mad rug <mad(dot)rug(dot)f(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgadmin-support(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Viewing TEXT objects |
Date: | 2009-10-02 12:33:37 |
Message-ID: | 4AC5F321.4050307@iol.ie |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgadmin-support |
On 02/10/2009 12:55, mad rug wrote:
> I really don't know. JDBC communication is being handled by a JDO
> library, so I don't know which one is doing this, but I suspect about
> JDO. I feel like asking about it in the forums there, but then I'd like
> to know: is there any performance (disk, read/write speed...) difference
> between storing large text data as TEXT and large object? I believe this
> indirection of storing as large object could mean a small overhead,
> unless it is somehow better using large objects (just then why use TEXT
> for some data that is just a couple of chars?)
Well, as I said I don't really know anything about large objects, but
I'd suspect that you're right about the performance hit with them.
However, TEXT is the recommended type for *any* text storage, big or
small: there's no difference performance-wise between TEXT and
VARCHAR(n), and if anything I'd guess that VARCHAR is a (very very) tiny
bit slower because of the length check. Large object is intended for
binary data.
Ray.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland
rod(at)iol(dot)ie
Galway Cathedral Recitals: http://www.galwaycathedral.org/recitals
------------------------------------------------------------------
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | mad rug | 2009-10-02 13:14:45 | Re: Viewing TEXT objects |
Previous Message | Dmitry Samokhin | 2009-10-02 12:12:36 | Per-function configuration parameters loss |