Re: char(N), varchar(N), varchar, text

From: Emi Lu <emilu(at)encs(dot)concordia(dot)ca>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: char(N), varchar(N), varchar, text
Date: 2014-10-08 14:42:55
Message-ID: 54354D6F.1080002@encs.concordia.ca
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance


>
>>
>> For performance point of view, are there big differences between:
>> char(N), varchar(N), varchar, text?
>>
>> Some comments from google shows:
>> No difference, under the hood it's all varlena. Check this article
>> from Depesz:
>> http://www.depesz.com/index.php/2010/03/02/charx-vs-varcharx-vs-varchar-vs-text/
>> A couple of highlights:
>>
>> To sum it all up:
>>
>> * char(n) – takes too much space when dealing with values
>> shorter than n, and can lead to subtle errors because of
>> adding trailing spaces, plus it is problematic to change the
>> limit
>> * varchar(n) – it's problematic to change the limit in live
>> environment
>> * varchar – just like text
>> * text – for me a winner – over (n) data types because it lacks
>> their problems, and over varchar – because it has distinct name
>>
>> So, can I assume no big performance differences?
>> Thanks alot!
>> Emi
>>
>
>
> Why do you need to ask if you already have the answer? Depesz is right.
Good to hear this. Well, sorry I saw the time is:/2010/03 (might changes
for diff/newer versions).

Thank you for the confirmation.
Emi

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2014-10-10 11:16:08 Re: Yet another abort-early plan disaster on 9.3
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2014-10-08 14:30:11 Re: char(N), varchar(N), varchar, text