Re: Overhead changing varchar(2000) to text
От | Edson Richter |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Overhead changing varchar(2000) to text |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BLU436-SMTP354A1736B78CA7A5E6E4B6CFE80@phx.gbl обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Overhead changing varchar(2000) to text (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Overhead changing varchar(2000) to text
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Thanks. After reading, I've run some tests and found no storage changes in tables moving from varchar(2000) to text. Actually, the biggest change is that I don't have to keep another constraint between app and database - if I want to increase the user perceived space, now I just have to change the application (of course, under the limits). Atenciosamente, Edson Carlos Ericksson Richter Em 09/12/2015 21:17, Kevin Grittner escreveu: > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Edson Richter <edsonrichter@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> I do have several tables that uses varchar(2000) as store for remarks. >> Lately, one customer need to store more than 2000 characteres, and I'm >> considering changing from varchar(2000) to text. >> >> What is the overhead? > None -- they are stored in exactly the same format; the only > difference is whether the length is limited. > >> Is there any place where I can learn about storage impacto for each data >> type? > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/datatype-character.html >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: