Re: Varchar standard compliance
От | Mitch Vincent |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Varchar standard compliance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 009101c05005$19e28cb0$0200000a@windows обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Varchar standard compliance (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I've been wondering the difference in varchar and TEXT in the aspect of length and indexing - what would happen if you tried to index a varchar(BLCKSZ) ? I know you can index smaller portions of text (at least it appears you can) so why not larger alphanumeric data? (I'm not complaining, just trying to understand.) I just made a varchar(30000) field, inserted some data into it and created an index on it, it seemed to work OK -- is it really only indexing X characters or something? -Mitch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net> To: "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 10:16 AM Subject: [HACKERS] Varchar standard compliance > Currently, CHAR is correctly interpreted as CHAR(1), but VARCHAR is > incorrectly interpreted as VARCHAR(<infinity>). Any reason for that, > besides the fact that it of course makes much more sense than VARCHAR(1)? > > Additionally, neither CHAR nor VARCHAR seem to bark on too long input, > they just truncate silently. > > I'm wondering because should the bit types be made to imitate this > incorrect behaviour, or should they start out correctly? > > -- > Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/ > >
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: