Re: [HACKERS] varchar() vs char16 performance

From: Brett McCormick <brett(at)work(dot)chicken(dot)org>
To: Hal Snyder <hal(at)vailsys(dot)com>
Cc: lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] varchar() vs char16 performance
Date: 1998-03-11 20:29:14
Message-ID: 13574.62439.864887.532887@abraxas.scene.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

n Wed, 11 March 1998, at 11:15:34, Hal Snyder wrote:

> > The char2,4,8,16 types seem to have no value-added over the
> > better-supported char(), varchar(), text types; I am considering
> > removing them from the backend, and instead have the parser
> > transparently translate the types into varchar() (or char() - I'm not
> > certain which is a better match for the types) for v6.4. Applications
> > would not have to be changed.
> >
> > Comments?
>
> I'm not up on the details of PostgreSQL's differing character types,
> but wonder - would the proposed change break any apps where trailing
> (or leading?) whitespace is significant? Not that I'm running any
> ...
>

Heh.. migrating to 6.3. was a surprise for me.. I certainly wasn't
expecting whitespace pads, and there are some cases where it makes a
big difference!

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Maarten Boekhold 1998-03-11 21:27:00 Re: indexing words slow
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-03-11 19:08:04 Re: AW: [HACKERS] attlen weirdness?