Message-ID: <12598e4d44a8bf530934e793fde9ab2743108046.camel@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: text fields and performance for ETL
From: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, "David G. Johnston"
	 <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Grega Jesih <Grega.Jesih@actual-it.si>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Pg
	Docs <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2021 06:27:35 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20211105152733.GC19812@momjian.us>
References: <686716cb5c4242c28e5967d9b6fcfc75@actual-it.si>
	 <137264.1635961048@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	 <c57e7a702932465ca9962d4f5d332c3a@actual-it.si>
	 <CAKFQuwYFfESp=xUpktYBbW8TxO8k=+uWN8F2G5Ehis2cpYuDnw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <70cf9fe110c246afb4eab054caab0c04@actual-it.si>
	 <CAKFQuwbX37AwNcKHMeaOq+LS_nhw_6sHwaUK1+UsQ8Nuo7bcfg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <516dc58b80fa418091f5262879019213@actual-it.si>
	 <b288134ae2290d5abc2a2d516a8d58892a656f30.camel@cybertec.at>
	 <20211105141712.GA19812@momjian.us>
	 <CAKFQuwbVkQAySX+KPiQT8miAP4D0mgG-xzZDCCxtb8DFB0NTog@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20211105152733.GC19812@momjian.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.4 (3.40.4-2.fc34) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/12598e4d44a8bf530934e793fde9ab2743108046.camel%40cybertec.at>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Nov  5, 2021 at 07:32:12AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > On Friday, November 5, 2021, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >     >
> >     > Perhaps, right before the tip you quoted, something like that:
> >     >
> >     >   If your use case requires a length limit on character data, or
> >     compliance
> >     >   with the SQL standard is important, use "character varying".
> >     >   Otherwise, you are usually better off with "text".
> > 
> >     I can support that if others think it is valuable.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The motivating complaint is that we should be encouraging people to use varchar
> > (4000) instead of text so external tools can optimize.  If we are not going to
> > do that I really don’t see the pointing in changing away from out current
> > position of “only use text”.  True length limit requirements for data are rare,
> > and better done in constraints along with all other the other constraint that
> > may exist for the data.  I believe comments with respect to the SQL standard
> > are already present and adequate.
> 
> Agreed.

+1, so let's leave it as it is.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe