RE: couple of general questions

From: "Harrelson, CulleyX" <culleyx(dot)harrelson(at)intel(dot)com>
To: "'Gregory Wood'" <gregw(at)com-stock(dot)com>
Cc: "'pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: couple of general questions
Date: 2001-01-19 15:28:43
Message-ID: C763901E8272D411962F009027AE9D3E04F0DC35@FMSMSX36
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

------------------------
Best, depending on the scenario. In cases where you are using a fixed number
of characters, there's no need for the overhead of a varchar. For instance
if you are storing state abbreviations, they will ALWAYS be 2 characters.
The database can look up those fixed fields faster. But if you are storing
full state names, it would be a waste to have all those passing spaces so
that you could fit Mississippi with Maine. All that being said, it's my
understanding that there will be no benefit to using the CHAR type over the
VARCHAR type in 7.1 due to architectural changes.
-----------------------------------

Is there any difference between varchar and text other than varchar places a
cap on the number of characters?

Culley

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gordan Bobic 2001-01-19 15:40:35 Re: Another optimizer question
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-01-19 15:24:42 Re: Another optimizer question