Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Optimization of this SQL sentence

From: "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>
Cc: "Mario Weilguni" <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Alexander Staubo" <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net>, "Ruben Rubio" <ruben(at)rentalia(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Optimization of this SQL sentence
Date: 2006-10-18 19:37:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 10/18/06, Jim C. Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:51:19PM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > so, imo alexander is correct:
> > contacto varchar(255)
> >
> > a false constraint, why exactly 255? is that were the dart landed?
> BTW, if we get variable-length varlena headers at some point, then
> setting certain limits might make sense to keep performance more
> consistent.

I would argue that it is assumptions about the underlying architecture
that got everyone into trouble in the first place :).  I would prefer
to treat length constraint as a constraint (n + 1 = error), unless
there was a *compelling* reason to do otherwise, which currently there
isn't (or hasn't been since we got toast)  a  lot of this stuff s due
to legacy thinking, a lot of dbf products had limts to varchar around
255 or so.

imo, a proper constraint system would apply everything at the domain
level, and minlength and maxlength would get equal weight, and be
optional for all types.


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Ioana DanesDate: 2006-10-18 19:51:34
Subject: Postgresql 8.1.4 - performance issues for select on view using max
Previous:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2006-10-18 19:19:01
Subject: Re: Optimization of this SQL sentence (SOLVED)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group