I assumed as much. Now's the time for me to optimize so I'd rather know and make optimizations accordingly, than step blindly. Thanks for the reply. As always, your a big help. --- Richard Huxton <dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Matthew Peter wrote: > > same size VARCHAR or INT IX faster? i assume INT. > The > > reason I ask is I was wondering what (if any) is > the > > avg delay from one over the other? And benefit of > one > > over the other? Thanks. > > If you want numbers, use INT. If you want text use a > VARCHAR. > > > It's probably difficult to come up with speed > comparisons for "the same > size" since varchar will have an overhead for the > field-length as well > as the number of characters. > > Even then, you'd have to account for client language > and application > overheads. > > In any case, optimising at this level is unlikely to > be a good use of > your time unless you really have reached the > practical limits of > available hardware. > > -- > Richard Huxton > Archonet Ltd > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map > settings > ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
