Re: [NOVICE] varchar vs varchar(n)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [NOVICE] varchar vs varchar(n) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 30799.1510587592@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [NOVICE] varchar vs varchar(n) (Ken Benson <Ken@infowerks.com>) |
Список | pgsql-novice |
Ken Benson <Ken@infowerks.com> writes: > On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us<mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote: > 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. > Is this true – even if the column in question will be used in (or as part of) an INDEX. > It seems to be the index would work best if the length of the columns involved is a known value. varchar(n) doesn't have a known length. Even char(n) doesn't have a known length in the presence of variable-width text encodings. So there are no optimizations of the sort you're imagining in Postgres. 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: