
The docs say that the text type is the "Best choice" of the character data
types.  It was always my understanding that the text type was stored else-
where in the database and a pointer to it was stored in the actual table.
Does PostgreSQL do this or is a more efficient way been found?  It seems
that it'd be too expensive to store it elsewhere.   I'm making some changes
to a table and wanted to optomize it (varchar vs text).

Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH   email: vev@michvhf.com   flame-mail: /dev/null
       # include <std/disclaimers.h>                   TEAM-OS2
        Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
       Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================



Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:41:22 -0500 (EST)
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>
to text or not to text
> 
> The docs say that the text type is the "Best choice" of the character data
> types.  It was always my understanding that the text type was stored else-
> where in the database and a pointer to it was stored in the actual table.
> Does PostgreSQL do this or is a more efficient way been found?  It seems
> that it'd be too expensive to store it elsewhere.   I'm making some changes
> to a table and wanted to optomize it (varchar vs text).

Internally, text is stored just like char().  Only large objects are
stored outside the database.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Mon, 22 Mar 1999 18:54:22 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] to text or not to text