Re: [INTERFACES] (libpq question) Holy cow, what's all this fluff?!

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Matthew Hagerty <matthew(at)venux(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] (libpq question) Holy cow, what's all this fluff?!
Date: 1999-02-14 18:45:18
Message-ID: 7750.919017918@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-interfaces

Matthew Hagerty <matthew(at)venux(dot)net> writes:
> At 04:30 AM 2/14/99 +0000, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
>>> You want a varchar (or is it bpchar?), not a char. char(x) will always
>>> return x characters, with space padding if necessary.

> Yeah, but the docs say you get a performance hit for using varchar, text,
> and the like. Which is worse, the database performance hit or the extra
> call to trim for every char field?

Whatever docs you are looking at are obsolete. char(n), varchar(n), and
text have essentially interchangeable performance and representation.
They all have a length word and some characters.

(I've griped about that myself --- particularly that plain "char" is
effectively an 8-byte field, not a 1-byte field like you'd expect.
Nobody else seems worried about it though.)

I'd recommend using "text", personally, unless you have a specific
reason for imposing an upper length limit on the string.

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ken J. Wright 1999-02-14 19:04:56 ODBC authentication failure
Previous Message Goda Attila 1999-02-14 15:01:49 ODBC and wxWindows