Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58BB9476773
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  8 Oct 2002 11:35:11 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (davinci.ethosmedia.com [209.10.40.250])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D584766E6
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  8 Oct 2002 11:35:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [63.195.55.98] (account <josh@agliodbs.com>)
	by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 3.5.9)
	with HTTP id 1775407; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 08:33:53 -0700
From: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
Subject: Re: CHAR, VARCHAR, TEXT (Was Large Databases)
To: Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.3.5.9
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 08:33:53 -0700
Message-ID: <web-1775407@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
In-Reply-To: <1034090215.1094.42.camel@haggis>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200210/63
X-Sequence-Number: 80

Ron, Shridhar,

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?

Otherwise, this discussion is rather academic ...

-Josh Berkus