From: | John DeSoi <desoi(at)pgedit(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Damian C <jamianb(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org List" <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Postgres advice for Java/Hibernate project |
Date: | 2006-06-19 02:05:17 |
Message-ID: | EE7C30AD-7832-4B3B-897D-294ACCD3D4AC@pgedit.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
Assuming Hibernate creates varchar columns (rather than fixed length,
space padded char columns) there is no difference in storage or
performance. This page explains all of the details:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/datatype-character.html
On Jun 18, 2006, at 9:30 PM, Damian C wrote:
> Question ONE: If we design a field (say) 50 characters long - and we
> have an instance/row using only (say) 20 characters - does Postgres
> "use" the whole 50, or only the 20??
>
> The issue here is a trade-off in how tightly we need to specify field
> lengths that we are currently unsure of. Are we wasting space if we
> make them large?
>
> Question TWO: When following typical Hibernate examples we notice that
> String fields are typically specified with a length at a "binary
> boundary". So they seem to always be specified at 16, 32, 64, 128
> etc. Really the question should be "is a String length 17 (or 33 or
> 65) significantly slower to insert/search/retrieve than a String of
> length 16 (or 32 or 64)?".
John DeSoi, Ph.D.
http://pgedit.com/
Power Tools for PostgreSQL
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-19 02:23:24 | Re: Postgres advice for Java/Hibernate project |
Previous Message | Richard Broersma Jr | 2006-06-19 01:53:13 | Re: Postgres advice for Java/Hibernate project |