Re: B-tree index on a VARCHAR(4000) column

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> v 9.2.7
>
> Based on LENGTH(offending_column), none of the values are more than 144
> bytes in this 44.2M row table. Even though VARCHAR is, by definition,
> variable length, are there any internal design issues which would make
> things more efficient if it were dropped to, for example, VARCHAR(256)?
>
> (I don't have access to the source code or to development boxes, so can't
> just test this on my own.)

Just use TEXT :-). Realizing that obsessing about column lengths was
a giant waste of time and energy for zero useful benefit that I've
ever observed was a transformational moment for me. Also, please
apply bugfix upgrades :-).

merlin