Re: [NOVICE] varchar vs varchar(n)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [NOVICE] varchar vs varchar(n) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 21800.1510515292@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [NOVICE] varchar vs varchar(n) (john snow <ofbizfanster@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [NOVICE] varchar vs varchar(n)
|
Список | pgsql-novice |
john snow <ofbizfanster@gmail.com> writes: > do postgresql developers just use varchar instead of specifying a limit n > when dealing with string types? if so, are there any gotcha's i should be > aware of? Generally speaking, I would only use varchar(n) when there is a clear reason traceable to application requirements why there has to be a limit, and why the limit should be n and not some other number. Otherwise you're just creating issues for yourself. The habit of inventing arbitrary limits on text column width is just a hangover from punched-card days. Actually, Postgres people tend to use "text" rather than unconstrained "varchar". In principle those two types behave equivalently; but the system has to jump through some extra hoops to work with varchar, and every so often you'll run into a case where "varchar" is not optimized as well as "text". regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-novice mailing list (pgsql-novice@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-novice
В списке pgsql-novice по дате отправления: