Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TrDcd-0003r6-5p for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:12:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TrDcc-0007sp-0s for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:12:06 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TrDcb-0007sL-6r for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:12:05 +0000 Received: from mout.gmx.net ([74.208.4.200]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TrDcV-0006xt-Rb for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 20:12:04 +0000 Received: from mailout-us.gmx.com ([172.19.198.44]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmxus001) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MLfLb-1TqOH03fxj-000qMZ for ; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 21:11:57 +0100 Received: (qmail 3760 invoked by uid 0); 4 Jan 2013 20:11:55 -0000 Received: from 76.255.19.161 by rms-us010 with HTTP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:11:52 -0500 From: "Kevin Grittner" Message-ID: <20130104201152.4830@gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Unclear CHARACTER specification To: "Lyle" ,pgsql-docs@postgresql.org X-Authenticated: #138763884 X-Flags: 0001 X-Mailer: GMX.com Web Mailer x-registered: 0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-GMX-UID: 31KVcIdg3zOlOQ09Lnwhxid+IGRvb0AZ X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-docs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org Lyle wrote: > Is there other documentation available that covers this? You might want to read this page: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.2/static/storage-toast.html Note that there is seldom a good reason to use char(n) in PostgreSQL for any value of n. As the page you cited mentions, "While character(n) has performance advantages in some other database systems, there is no such advantage in PostgreSQL; in fact character(n) is usually the slowest of the three because of its additional storage costs. In most situations text or character varying should be used instead." Don't try to micro-optimize by breaking what is logically a larger string into 126 character pieces; that will defeat copression, take more space to store, and add processing overhead. In other words, such an attempt will almost certainly backfire. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs