> > > Varchar currently (in 6.2.1 and below) takes up the entire length specified
> > > in the definition, despite the fact the value in it may actually be
> > > shorter. Text takes only the space taken by the value.
> >
> > Thanks for the clarification. In this case, what happens with varchar's
> > length if the original definition for that field leaves length undefined?
> > Does it behave like text in that case?
>
> You really shouldn't be doing that.  Not sure what happens.  Not a good
> idea:
>
>         create table test (x varchar);

?? This was defined to be a varchar of unlimited length, much like, or identical
to, text. Should this now be disallowed? If so, we can fix the parser to disallow
it so people don't get misled.

> > I also vaguely recall seeing a message last year about the use of indexes
> > in queries: that in [some circumstances] indexes built on varchar fields
> > don't get used and a sequential scan through all records takes place
> > instead. Is there any distinction between varchar and text here?
>
> Don't remember that.

This was probably Bruce's improvements to allow indices on some pattern matching.
Doesn't make a distinction between these types in its behavior.

                                                  - Tom


Sun, 01 Mar 1998 21:28:56 +0000
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [QUESTIONS] varchar vs text
> 
> > > > Varchar currently (in 6.2.1 and below) takes up the entire length specified
> > > > in the definition, despite the fact the value in it may actually be
> > > > shorter. Text takes only the space taken by the value.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the clarification. In this case, what happens with varchar's
> > > length if the original definition for that field leaves length undefined?
> > > Does it behave like text in that case?
> >
> > You really shouldn't be doing that.  Not sure what happens.  Not a good
> > idea:
> >
> >         create table test (x varchar);
> 
> ?? This was defined to be a varchar of unlimited length, much like, or identical
> to, text. Should this now be disallowed? If so, we can fix the parser to disallow
> it so people don't get misled.

Oh, I didn't know.  There really is no difference between varchar with
no lenght, and text, but if it doesn't break anything, no problem.

> 
> > > I also vaguely recall seeing a message last year about the use of indexes
> > > in queries: that in [some circumstances] indexes built on varchar fields
> > > don't get used and a sequential scan through all records takes place
> > > instead. Is there any distinction between varchar and text here?
> >
> > Don't remember that.
> 
> This was probably Bruce's improvements to allow indices on some pattern matching.
> Doesn't make a distinction between these types in its behavior.

Not sure what to say on this.  I remember that issue, but not how it
caused any problem.

-- 
Bruce Momjian                          |  830 Blythe Avenue
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us              |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  (610) 353-9879(w)
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  (610) 853-3000(h)

Sun, 1 Mar 1998 16:39:28 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [QUESTIONS] varchar vs text