From: | Frank Bax <fbax(at)sympatico(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Raphael Bauduin <raphael(at)be(dot)easynet(dot)net>, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: text field |
Date: | 2002-01-30 01:21:04 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.6.32.20020129202104.008923a0@pop6.sympatico.ca |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
At 01:35 PM 1/29/02 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>Raphael,
>
>> I need to put a field in a database that will hold a login for the
>> users.
>> That login is rather long (it's their e-mail address) and of variable
>> length (I can't change that :-).
>> I thought of using the text type, but wondered what were the
>> implications in terms of speed and amount of data (does it use much
>> more space than othe character types?)
>
>Not in PostgreSQL. However, you may find that some interfaces (such as
> ODBC and JDBC) put limits on waht you can do with a Text column. For
> example, MS Access/ODBC will interpret a TEXT field (or and VARCHAR
> over 250 chars) as a "memo" field and refuse to let you search or
> aggregate on the field.
>
>Otherwise, TEXT and VARCHAR perform the same in PostgreSQL.
Almost the same? I read recently that VARCHAR(n) has a minor overhead on
UPDATE to enforce the max length.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sharon Cowling | 2002-01-30 01:47:00 | Function Problem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-29 23:57:26 | Re: [Fwd: Re: pgaccess connection problems] |