| From: | "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Text/Varchar performance... |
| Date: | 2005-10-05 18:34:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20051005183441.GA32451@uio.no |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 12:21:35PM -0600, Cristian Prieto wrote:
> Hello, just a little question, It's preferable to use Text Fields or
> varchar(255) fields in a table? Are there any performance differences in the
> use of any of them?
They are essentially the same. Note that you can have varchar without length
(well, up to about a gigabyte or so after compression), and you can have
varchar with a length well above 255 (say, 100000).
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John D. Burger | 2005-10-05 18:43:40 | Problems with group by ... order by |
| Previous Message | Cristian Prieto | 2005-10-05 18:21:35 | Text/Varchar performance... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2005-10-05 18:35:37 | Re: Ultra-cheap NVRAM device |
| Previous Message | Jeffrey W. Baker | 2005-10-05 18:30:21 | Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort? |