Re: Postgres advice for Java/Hibernate project
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgres advice for Java/Hibernate project |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8950.1150683804@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Postgres advice for Java/Hibernate project ("Damian C" <jamianb@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Postgres advice for Java/Hibernate project
|
Список | pgsql-novice |
"Damian C" <jamianb@gmail.com> writes: > Question ONE: If we design a field (say) 50 characters long - and we > have an instance/row using only (say) 20 characters - does Postgres > "use" the whole 50, or only the 20?? Do you have a concrete reason to put a limit on the field width at all? If not, don't. Use type text, or varchar without any particular length limit. In any case, avoid type char(N), which is a historical hangover that no longer has an excuse to live ... > Question TWO: When following typical Hibernate examples we notice that > String fields are typically specified with a length at a "binary > boundary". So they seem to always be specified at 16, 32, 64, 128 > etc. Really the question should be "is a String length 17 (or 33 or > 65) significantly slower to insert/search/retrieve than a String of > length 16 (or 32 or 64)?". Perhaps there's some database somewhere that cares, but Postgres certainly doesn't. I rather doubt there's a reason for it on the Java side either. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-novice по дате отправления: