Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The scenario I was describing was having, for example, 20 fields each
> of which are char(100) and store 'x' (which are padded with 99
> spaces). So the row is 2k but the fields are highly compressible, but
> shorter than the 256 byte minimum.
To be blunt, the solution to problems like that is sending the DBA to a
re-education camp. I don't think we should invest huge amounts of
effort on something that's trivially fixed by using the correct datatype
instead of the wrong datatype.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
