Does a varchar field's declared size have any impact in PostgreSQL?

postgresql performance varchar disk-access
ibz picture ibz · Jul 1, 2009 · Viewed 19.2k times · Source

Is VARCHAR(100) any better than VARCHAR(500) from a performance point of view? What about disk usage?

Talking about PostgreSQL today, not some database some time in history.

Answer

the.jxc picture the.jxc · Jul 1, 2009

They are identical.

From the PostgreSQL documentation:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/datatype-character.html

Tip: There are no performance differences between these three types, apart from increased storage size when using the blank-padded type, and a few extra cycles to check the length when storing into a length-constrained column. While character(n) has performance advantages in some other database systems, it has no such advantages in PostgreSQL. In most situations text or character varying should be used instead.

Here they are talking about the differences between char(n), varchar(n) and text (= varchar(1G)). The official story is that there is no difference between varchar(100) and text (very large varchar).

Related questions

Best way to select random rows PostgreSQL

I want a random selection of rows in PostgreSQL, I tried this: select * from table where random() < 0.01; But some other recommend this: select * from table order by random() limit 1000; I have a very large table with 500 Million rows, I …

Read More
postgresql COUNT(DISTINCT ...) very slow

I have a very simple SQL query: SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT x) FROM table; My table has about 1.5 million rows. This query is running pretty slowly; it takes about 7.5s, compared to SELECT COUNT(x) FROM table; which takes about 435ms. …

Read More
Is it possible to get a history of queries made in postgres

Is it possible to get a history of queries made in postgres? and is it be possible to get the time it took for each query? I'm currently trying to identify slow queries in the application I'm working on. I'm …

Read More