Gregory Stark schrieb:
I meant the limit you give it. Not the internal one. VARCHAR(50) has a limit of 50, right?"Daniel Migowski" <dmigowski(at)ikoffice(dot)de> writes: I think a VARCHAR(50) and text are not interchangeable. Which restrictions does an JDBC-LONGVARCHAR impose? Read the JDBC spec, please, where they say they are interchangeable reagrding all Access methods? Like in PostgreSQL. But a LONGVARCHAR is IMHO commonly regarded as "very much text", while a VARCHAR(n) is regarded as "up to n chars" of text.I think this has come up before, you should check the mail archives. The problem is that describing "text" as if it's not a simple varchar type of type confuses other applications into restricting what you can do with it. They assume it has the kind of restrictions other databases impose. This one is new to me. Does this mean even storage is done the same for text and varchar? Does this mean I could savely convert all my varchar's to text (if my client application accepts this?)Generally in Postgres you're probably best off using "text" unless you have some specific limit you need to impose. In most cases Postgres will silently cast your varchars to text when necessary but every now and then you might find a case where it doesn't and fails to use an index or optimize a query where it could. With best regards, Daniel Migowski PS: Now searching the archives... --
|¯¯|¯¯| IKOffice GmbH Daniel Migowski | | |/| Mail: dmigowski(at)ikoffice(dot)de | | // | Nordstr. 10 Tel.: +49 (441) 21 98 89 52 | | \\ | 26135 Oldenburg Fax.: +49 (441) 21 98 89 55 |__|__|\| http://www.ikoffice.de Mob.: +49 (176) 22 31 20 76 Geschäftsführer: Ingo Kuhlmann, Daniel Migowski Amtsgericht Oldenburg, HRB 201467 Steuernummer: 64/211/01864 |