Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Alessio Bragadini wrote:
> > On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 11:37, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> >
> > > I cannot think of any reason why changing column order should be
> > > implemented in Postgres. Seems like a waste of time/more code bloat for
> > > something which is strictly asthetic.
> > >
> > > Regardless, I do have collegues/clients who ask when such a feature will
> > > be implemented. Why is this useful?
> >
> > Has column ordering any effect on the physical tuple disposition? I've
> > heard discussions about keeping fixed-size fields at the beginning of
> > the tuple and similar.
> >
> > Sorry for the lame question. :-)
>
> Yes, column ordering matches physical column ordering in the file, and
> yes, there is a small penalty for accessing any columns after the first
> variable-length column (pg_type.typlen < 0). CHAR() used to be a fixed
> length column, but with TOAST (large offline storage) it became variable
> length too. I don't think there is much of a performance hit, though.
When was char() fixed size? We had fixed size things like char, char2,
char4 ... char16. But char() is internally bpchar() and has allways been
variable-length.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
