Folks -
> On other DBMSes there could be a difference, especially if the DBMS
> has
> performance problems with variable-length fields.
For example ... MS-SQL Server 7.0 requires 2 extra bytes to store the
length of a string for VARCHAR. Thus, CHAR(3) takes 3 bytes (roughly)
and VARCHAR(3) take
"Peter J. Schoenster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 22 Mar 2001, at 10:05, Tom Lane wrote:
>> There is *no* performance advantage of CHAR(n) over VARCHAR(n).
> I wonder if this question of char/varchar is postgresql specific or
> rdbms in general.
It's definitely RDBMS-specific. My comment
On 22 Mar 2001, at 10:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> There is *no* performance advantage of CHAR(n) over VARCHAR(n).
> If anything, there is a performance lossage due to extra disk I/O
> (because all those padding blanks take space, and time to read).
>
> My advice is to use CHAR(n) when that semanticall
On 21 Mar 2001, at 18:58, Martin A. Marques wrote:
> two questions.
> When should I use one, and when the other?
> Which is the limit on CHAR(n) and VARCHAR(n)?
Okay, here is my more "let's get this thing working" as opposed to
"after dedicated study of the matter" opinion (which I hope some
d
