d; 'Bruce Momjian'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SQL] indexing on char vs varchar
>
>
> Beth,
>
> Oh, and you should take this sort of question to the new
> performance list:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> -Josh Berkus
> Aglio Database
Beth,
Oh, and you should take this sort of question to the new performance list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Beth,
> SorryI don't understand. The length is at the front of what?
In some RDBMSs, the VARCHAR data type has a 2 or 4-byte indicator of the
length of the stored string before the data itself, while CHAR does not
require this information because it is fixed-length. This makes the CHAR
SorryI don't understand. The length is at the front of what?
-Beth
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:06 AM
> To: Beth Gatewood
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SQL] inde
We store all the text/char/varchar types with the length at the front so
we don't have such optimizations. We do have "char", in quotes, which
is a single character, but that's about it.
---
Beth Gatewood wrote:
> Hi-
>
>
Hi-
This is more just trying to understand what is going on under the hood of
pgsql. I have read through the archives that there is no difference between
index on char, varchar or text. I am wondering why? I understand all the
arguments about saving space but I am specifically asking about ind
