| From: | "Brett W(dot) McCoy" <bmccoy(at)chapelperilous(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Singer Wang <swang(at)cs(dot)dal(dot)ca> |
| Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: varchar vs char vs text |
| Date: | 2002-02-12 21:01:34 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.43.0202121559150.2365-100000@chapelperilous.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Singer Wang wrote:
> if I have a column that's gonna be between 5-300 charactors... should I go with a
> a charactor? varchar? or a text?
>
> what's the performance penalty going with a text instead of a varchar... or a char?
> I don't need to index it.... nor search based on it..
I'd go with text. It's not SQL92, though. varchar is technically
supposed to have a limit of 255, but I don't think that limit
exists in Postgres.
-- Brett
http://www.chapelperilous.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To say you got a vote of confidence would be to say you needed a vote of
confidence.
-- Andrew Young
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2002-02-12 21:43:10 | Re: "Hot Backups" |
| Previous Message | Jason Earl | 2002-02-12 20:41:03 | Re: varchar vs char vs text |