Varchar vs varchar(64)
| От | Rob Richardson |
|---|---|
| Тема | Varchar vs varchar(64) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 04A6DB42D2BA534FAC77B90562A6A03DAFA210@server.rad-con.local обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | How to free disk space ("Ruben Blanco" <rubenblan@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Varchar vs varchar(64)
Re: Varchar vs varchar(64) |
| Список | pgsql-general |
Greetings!
The database we install at our customers as part of our product includes an event_history table. For some reason lost in the mists of time, the most important field in that table, the description, is a varchar field specified to be only 64 characters long. This leads me to a more fundamental question: why specify the length of a varchar field at all? Is there a big difference between the amount of disk space taken up by "abc" stored in a varchar(64) field and stored in a varchar field? How much space does an unspecified-length varchar field take up? Are there other reasons to use varchar(64) instead of varchar?
Thank you very much!
RobR
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: