Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD236133740B
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:06:34 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 48997-06
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 14 Feb 2011 12:06:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sam.nabble.com (sam.nabble.com [216.139.236.26])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608811336971
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:06:27 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [192.168.236.26] (helo=sam.nabble.com)
	by sam.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <dbadbb@gmail.com>) id 1PoxCF-00065q-4Y
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2011 04:06:27 -0800
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 04:06:27 -0800 (PST)
From: dba <dbadbb@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Message-ID: <1297685187135-3384348.post@n5.nabble.com>
Subject: Field wise checking the performance.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.767 tagged_above=-10 required=5
	tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL=0.01,
	URI_HEX=1.122
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201102/382
X-Sequence-Number: 42520



I have two identical tables. But the with of the fields are different. Need
to know whether changing from varchar(100) to varchar(30) will increase the
performance, or its just the memory access.
-- 
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Field-wise-checking-the-performance-tp3384348p3384348.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - performance mailing list archive at Nabble.com.