Re: Size or efficiency differences "varchar(128) vs. varchar(32)"

From: Emi Lu <emilu(at)encs(dot)concordia(dot)ca>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Size or efficiency differences "varchar(128) vs. varchar(32)"
Date: 2008-07-21 16:59:02
Message-ID: 4884C056.1050803@encs.concordia.ca
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

Sorry, forgot to replay all.

> Emi Lu wrote:
>
>> May I know does varchar(128) and varchar(32) will cause any size or
>> efficiency differences?
>
> None at all.

Basically, there is no efficiency differences at all, if I know a column
is now varchar(32) but could be potentially increased to length(col)>32
in the future, I will setup to varchar(128).

This column will be setup as varchar(128) everywhere so that foreign key
constraints will work.

I had thought "foreign constraint, query or indexes" on varchar(32)
could be more efficient than varchar(128) and I was wrong.

I will use varchar(128) for my column.

Thanks a lot!

In response to

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Milan Oparnica 2008-07-21 20:45:36 Re: PERSISTANT PREPARE (another point of view)
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2008-07-21 16:17:04 Re: Size or efficiency differences "varchar(128) vs. varchar(32)"