On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 11:29:15AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > About the only reason I use CHAR in other databases systems is when I > > know that the field will always contain the same amount of data, ie: > > storing a SHA1. In these cases it's silly to have a 4 byte overhead to > > store length. I really wish CHAR in PostgreSQL worked this way, so it > > would be a welcome addition to have a type that did work this way. In > > fact, I'd argue that CHAR should be made to work that way, and what's > > currently called CHAR should be renamed for those who wish to use it. > > This argument falls flat when you consider that the width of a CHAR > entry is measured in characters, not bytes, and therefore its physical > size is not fixed even if its logical width is.
True, but in every case I've used char it was to store something that would never be multi-byte, like a GUID, or a SHA1. Though I guess in retrospect, what would really be handy is 'hex' datatype, that stores a hex string (possibly with a custom format, such as a GUID) in it's native binary format. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
