From: Beth Gatewood <beth@vizxlabs.com>
To: 'Bruce Momjian' <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: indexing on char vs varchar
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:11:31 -0700
Message-ID: <000001c26a36$c1a48c80$0c00000a@bethvizx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200210021706.g92H6Re29922@candle.pha.pa.us>
Sorry....I don't understand. The length is at the front of what?
-Beth
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 10:06 AM
> To: Beth Gatewood
> Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [SQL] indexing on char vs varchar
>
>
>
> We store all the text/char/varchar types with the length at
> the front so
> we don't have such optimizations. We do have "char", in quotes, which
> is a single character, but that's about it.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> Beth Gatewood wrote:
> > Hi-
> >
> > This is more just trying to understand what is going on
> under the hood of
> > pgsql. I have read through the archives that there is no
> difference between
> > index on char, varchar or text. I am wondering why? I
> understand all the
> > arguments about saving space but I am specifically asking
> about index
> > performance and wondering about the underworkings of
> indices based on char
> > and varchar.
> >
> > Othe RDBMS have clear leanings that indexing on chars are a
> better way to
> > go.
> >
> > In MySQL this is due to a static table characteristics
> > (http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/Static_format.html) and speed
> for an index
> > look-up (row number X row length). and the ease to read a
> constant number of
> > records with each disk.
> >
> > In the case of Oracle, the suggestion for char is based on if using
> > varchar2 that takes 5 char and then there is a subsequent
> update to this
> > field to now take 20 char, but now the record can not grow
> physically...so
> > they essentially mark the old one as deleted and create a
> new record at the
> > top (in an entirely new block) but the problem is that the
> index points to
> > the deleted block...so the index has to query the old block
> and then the
> > new....(info from:
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=oracle+char+vs+varchar+index&hl=en&lr=&ie=
> UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=3a791aa3%40news.iprimus.com.au&rnum=1)
>
> Thanks for explaining this to me....
> -Beth
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: beth@vizxlabs.com, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us
Subject: Re: indexing on char vs varchar
In-Reply-To: <000001c26a36$c1a48c80$0c00000a@bethvizx>
* 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