Message-ID: <486A4E62.40502@archonet.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:33:54 +0100
From: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Franck Routier <franck.routier@axege.com>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Does max size of varchar influence index size
References: <1214845078.6710.7.camel@franck-laptop>	
	<1214857494.6049.76.camel@localhost>
	<1214924736.668.22.camel@franck-laptop>
In-Reply-To: <1214924736.668.22.camel@franck-laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Franck Routier wrote:
> Le lundi 30 juin 2008 =C3=A0 13:24 -0700, Mark Roberts a =C3=A9crit :
>=20
> Hi Mark,
>=20
>> Is there any particular reason that you're not using a surrogate key?
>=20
> Well, human readability is the main reason, no standard way to handle
> sequences between databases vendors being the second... (and also
> problems when copying data between different instances of the database)=
.
>=20
> So surrogate keys could be a way, and I am considering this, but I'd
> rather avoid it :)

Might be worth looking at 8.3 - that can save you significant space with=20
short varchar's - the field-length is no longer fixed at 32 bits but can=20
  adjust itself automatically. Apart from the overheads, you need the=20
space to store the text in each string, not the maximum possible.

--=20
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd