From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Grega Jesih <Grega.Jesih@actual-it.si>
Cc: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: grega.jesih@gmail.com <grega.jesih@gmail.com>
Cc: Pg Docs <pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: text fields and performance for ETL
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2021 13:37:28 -0400
Message-ID: <137264.1635961048@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <686716cb5c4242c28e5967d9b6fcfc75@actual-it.si>
References: <163594615980.678.1904941309603792278@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
<CAKFQuwa_02fEtL8zJMt7MR=xvrp-De1pQtHFtg7fSHhSm1ajnA@mail.gmail.com>
<686716cb5c4242c28e5967d9b6fcfc75@actual-it.si>
Grega Jesih <Grega.Jesih@actual-it.si> writes:
>> The goal in our docs is to point out that using an arbitrary length specification is not required in PostgreSQL.
> Well perhaps yours. But there are pro-tools (I refer to SSIS in this context) that provide a very fast dataflow in case there is a known record size.
That's a matter for those tools to document, not us, because it's their
performance characteristics that you are talking about, not ours.
I'll just point out in passing, though, that "fixed record size" for text
strings is an illusion as soon as you have to deal with non-ASCII data.
So I'm skeptical that such optimizations are worth much anymore.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, Grega.Jesih@actual-it.si, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, grega.jesih@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: text fields and performance for ETL
In-Reply-To: <137264.1635961048@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox