Good morning,

I'd like to create a varchar length column.

May I know does varchar(128) and varchar(32) will cause any size or
efficiency differences?

Thanks a lot!

--
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql

Emi Lu wrote:

> May I know does varchar(128) and varchar(32) will cause any size or
> efficiency differences?

None at all.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

--
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Emi Lu <emilu@encs.concordia.ca> wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> I'd like to create a varchar length column.
>
> May I know does varchar(128) and varchar(32) will cause any size or
> efficiency differences?

If you store the same thing in each, no. If you store 128 char text
in the varchar(128) it will of course be bigger than a 32 char text in
the varchar(32) field.

--
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql

Sorry, forgot to replay all.

> Emi Lu wrote:
>
>> May I know does varchar(128) and varchar(32) will cause any size or
>> efficiency differences?
>
> None at all.


Basically, there is no efficiency differences at all, if I know a column
is now varchar(32) but could be potentially increased to length(col)>32
in the future, I will setup to varchar(128).

This column will be setup as varchar(128) everywhere so that foreign key
constraints will work.

I had thought "foreign constraint, query or indexes" on varchar(32)
could be more efficient than varchar(128) and I was wrong.

I will use varchar(128) for my column.

Thanks a lot!





--
Sent via pgsql-sql mailing list (pgsql-sql@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-sql