On 09/26/2016 07:38 AM, Rob Sargent wrote:
On 09/26/2016 08:14 AM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
On 09/26/2016 06:54 AM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
Rakesh Kumar schrieb am 26.09.2016 um 15:08:
You sound like you think that varchar(50) is somehow cheaper than
text.
The biggest impediment to text cols in other RDBMS is no index
allowed.
If PG has an elegant solution to that, then yes I see the point made
by the
original poster.
Don't confuse Postgres' "text" data type with "text" in other DBMS.
Just be aware that layers above the database often do not understand
that and will see text as a memo field. For instance in Django a text
field will get rendered as a Textarea widget whereas a varchar field
will be rendered as an TextInput widget. You can override that, but it
is extra work. Luckily Postgres has the notion of an unbounded varchar:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/datatype-character.html
".. If character varying is used without length specifier, the type
accepts strings of any size. The latter is a PostgreSQL extension."
This allows you to have 'text' without it being called text, as stated
below.
There is no difference whatsoever between varchar and text in Postgres.
Does that trick remove the overhead (length check) Tom mentioned upstream?
Should have said earlier, the other side of the story is it makes your
schema less portable. Since I gave up on that some time ago it is not
something that is my first concern.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
