From: | "Richard Broersma" <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Don Mies (NIM)" <dmies(at)networksinmotion(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Disadvantages to using "text" |
Date: | 2008-05-07 16:03:57 |
Message-ID: | 396486430805070903w66a41485h3de0e502c6f318de@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Don Mies (NIM)
<dmies(at)networksinmotion(dot)com> wrote:
> Are there any reasons for not using the "text" type whenever a variable
> length string field is needed? Are there penalties in disk usage, memory
> usage or performance?
Some client programs don't know how to deal with this and the
unconstrained VARCHAR datatype. Especially where they are used as
primary/foreign key or as collumns used in grouping aggregates. For
example MS-Access and Crystal reports maps the text data type as a
memo field which has limitations.
> What are the differences between declaring something "varchar" or
> "varchar(n)" or "text"? (I realize that the middle one has an upper limit
> while the others do not.)
Practically, VARCHAR = TEXT. Client programs like VARCHAR(N) as long
as it can map its constained text datatype to it.
--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
Visit the Los Angles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG)
http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-05-07 16:06:40 | Re: [NOVICE] encoding problems |
Previous Message | Aurynn Shaw | 2008-05-07 16:02:10 | Re: Disadvantages to using "text" |