Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Certainly the idea of not having to store a length word for CHAR(1) fields > is not going to inspire anyone to invest the effort involved ;-)
That's a pretty big motivation though. Storage space efficiency is a huge factor in raw sequential scan speed. Personally I would settle for a fuller set of small fixed size datatypes. The "char" datatype is pretty much exactly what's needed except that it provides such a quirky interface. I'm not sure exactly how to clean it up but if it were more user-friendly (and had less of an "undocumented internal feature" character to it) I have a feeling a lot of people would be using for things like flags, state codes, etc. And it would reduce storage space significantly over having lots of text or even integer fields. -- greg ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
