Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1477F475B33
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  8 Oct 2002 19:37:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (davinci.ethosmedia.com [209.10.40.250])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8C3476541
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  8 Oct 2002 19:37:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [216.135.165.74] (HELO lazarus)
	by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.5.9)
	with ESMTP-TLS id 1776247; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 16:36:21 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Organization: Aglio Database Solutions
To: Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: CHAR, VARCHAR, TEXT (Was Large Databases)
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 16:36:40 -0700
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.4]
References: <web-1775407@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
	<200210081544.36139.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<1034119771.1365.154.camel@haggis>
In-Reply-To: <1034119771.1365.154.camel@haggis>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200210081636.40713.josh@agliodbs.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200210/68
X-Sequence-Number: 85


Ron,

> > > > Maybe I missed something on this thread, but can either of you give
> > > > me an example of a real database where the PostgreSQL approach of
> > > > "all strings are TEXT" versus the more traditional CHAR
> > > > implementation have resulted in measurable performance loss?
> > >
> > > ??????
> >
> > In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>
> Well, does Really Slow Performance qualify as "broke"?

That's what I was asking.   Can you explain where your slow performance is=
=20
attibutable to the CHAR implementation issues?   I missed that, if it was=
=20
explained earlier in the thread.

--=20
Josh Berkus
josh@agliodbs.com
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco