Search Postgresql Archives

Re: varchar(n) VS text

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Tom Lane wrote:
"Pierre Thibaudeau" <pierdeux@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
I am puzzling over this issue:

1) Is there ever ANY reason to prefer "varchar(n)" to "text" as a column type?

In words of one syllable: no.

Not unless you have an application requirement for a specific maximum
length limit (eg, your client code will crash if fed a string longer
than 256 bytes, or there's a genuine data-validity constraint that you
can enforce this way).

Or if you want to have schema-level portability to some other DB that
understands varchar(N) but not text.  (varchar(N) is SQL-standard,
while text isn't, so I'm sure there are some such out there.)

From my reading of the dataype documentation, the ONLY reason I can
think of for using "varchar(n)" would be in order to add an extra
data-type constraint to the column.

That is *exactly* what it does.  No more and no less.  There's no
performance advantage, in fact you can expect to lose a few cycles
to the constraint check.

			regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

               http://archives.postgresql.org/



Is there any disk space advantages to using varchar over text? Or will a text field only ever use up as much data as it needs.

I have a database where pretty much all text-type fields are created as varchars - I inherited this db from an MS SQL server and left them as varchar when I converted the database over to PG. My thoughts were text being a non-constrained data type may use up more disk space than a varchar and if I know there will never be more than 3 characters in the field for example, I could save some space by only creating a 3 length field.

In my case, any field length restrictions are governed by the application so I don't really need the constraint built into the back end. If there is a slight performance disadvantage to using varchar and no real disk space saving - and I have in some cases 40 or 50 of these fields in a table - then would it be better for me to convert these fields to text?.

Not to mention that I run into a problem occasionally where inputting a string that contains an apostraphe - PG behaves differently if it is a varchar to if it is a text type and my app occasionally fails.

I.e.
insert into tester (test_varchar) values ('abc''test');
I get the following:
ERROR: array value must start with "{" or dimension information
SQL state: 22P02

If I use the same command but inserting into a text-type field.
insert into tester (test_text) values ('abc''test');
It works fine.

But that's beside the point - my question is should I convert everything to text fields and, if so, is there any easy way of writting a script to change all varchar fields to text?

--
Paul Lambert
Database Administrator
AutoLedgers



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Postgresql Jobs]     [Postgresql Admin]     [Postgresql Performance]     [Linux Clusters]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Postgresql & PHP]     [Yosemite]
  Powered by Linux