On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 03:15:35PM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote: > On Fri, 2021-11-05 at 09:51 +0000, Grega Jesih wrote: > > Suggested current text addendum: > > > > But, if you consider doing ETL from Postgres database to some outer target > > environment and you seek performance in such interfaces, follow the logic > > of limited size (varchar or char) data types in your database model. > > Because if you make a dataflow of known size types, interface code can take > > a big block of data while for text fields you need to check each record. > > I am opposed to that. > > It is not our business to discuss the limitations of a certain third-party > software product. > If that were something wide-spread, perhaps. But I myself have never seen a > problem > with "text", as long as the actual size of the data is moderate.
Agreed. > > Optional additional remark: > > > > Another good aspect of known data sizes is easier understanding of field > > content and implicit data (length) control. > > Something like that makes more sense to me. > > Perhaps, right before the tip you quoted, something like that: > > If your use case requires a length limit on character data, or compliance > with the SQL standard is important, use "character varying". > Otherwise, you are usually better off with "text". I can support that if others think it is valuable. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
