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@archonet.com> 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
