On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 01:21:05PM +0200, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
> I'll try to rephrase to check if I understood and for reference.
>
> varchar is slower than text since it has to do some "data type
> check".
Yes but no. It is said to be slower because it has to do a
data length check, not
essentially you are trying to store a database in a database, and
that's slow for one.
Second, storing things as varchar is space and index (space)
ineffective - and that's another reason to make things slower.
Third - you need to complicate your logic to retrieve data, and that adds up.
text is l
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:00:30 +0200
Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:33:34AM +0200, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
> wrote:
>
> > Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:02:13AM +0100, Seref Arikan wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have a set of dynamically composed objects
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:33:34AM +0200, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
> Karsten Hilbert wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:02:13AM +0100, Seref Arikan wrote:
> >
> > > I have a set of dynamically composed objects represented in
> > > Java, with string values for various attributes, which
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:00:59 +0200
Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:02:13AM +0100, Seref Arikan wrote:
>
> > I have a set of dynamically composed objects represented in
> > Java, with string values for various attributes, which have
> > variable length. In case you have sugges
