Re: NUMERIC x VARCHAR
| От | Jan Wieck |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: NUMERIC x VARCHAR |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 411A715C.70808@Yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: NUMERIC x VARCHAR ("Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@qwest.net>) |
| Список | pgsql-performance |
On 8/11/2004 2:21 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Tue, 2004-08-10 at 23:42, Er Galvão Abbott wrote: >> Greetings. >> >> I have a question regarding performance of certain datatypes: >> >> I have a field where I will store my clients phone numbers. I know >> that this field will never exceed 15 characters, and I will store only >> numbers here (no dashes, dots, etc...), so I was wondering: >> >> Wich type is faster: NUMERIC(15,0) or VARCHAR(15)? Are there any >> storage differences between them? > > Since numerics are stored as text strings, the storage would be > similar. Numerics, however, may be slower since they have more > constraints built in. If you throw a check constraint on the > varchar(15) then it will likely be about the same speed for updating. They are stored as an array of signed small integers holding digits in base-10000, plus a precision, scale and sign. That's somewhat different from text strings, isn't it? Jan > > text type with a check contraint it what i'd use. That way if you want > to change it at a later date you just drop and recreate your constraint. > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: