Database Administrators Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for database professionals who wish to improve their database skills and learn from others in the community. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

According to PostgreSQL's docs, there's no performance difference between VARCHAR, VARCHAR(n) and TEXT.

Should I add an arbitrary length limit to a name or address column?

Edit: Not a dupe of Would index lookup be noticeably faster with char vs varchar when all values are 36 chars, I know the CHAR type is a relic of the past and I'm interested not only in performance but other other pros and cons like Erwin stated in his amazing answer.

share|improve this question
up vote 19 down vote accepted

The answer is no.
Don't add a length modifier to varchar if you can avoid it. Most of the time, you don't actually need a length restriction anyway. Just use text for all character data. Make that varchar (no length modifier) if you need to stay compatible with RDBMS which don't have text.

Performance is almost the same - text is a bit faster in rare situations, and you save the cycles for the check on the length.

If you actually need to enforce a maximum length, still use text and add a check constraint for that:

ALTER TABLE tbl ADD CONSTRAINT tbl_col_len CHECK (length(col) < 51);

You can modify or drop such a constraint at any time without having to mess with the table definition and all depending objects (views, functions, foreign keys, ...)

With length modifiers you just run into problems like this or this or this ...

PostgreSQL 9.1 introduced a new feature to alleviate the pain somewhat. I quote the release notes here:

Allow ALTER TABLE ... SET DATA TYPE to avoid table rewrites in appropriate cases (Noah Misch, Robert Haas)

For example, converting a varchar column to text no longer requires a rewrite of the table. However, increasing the length constraint on a varchar column still requires a table rewrite.

share|improve this answer

If you see the length limit as a kind of check constraint to make sure you validate the data, then yes add one. Actually you might want to not use a length definition but a real check constraint instead, to make changing the limit faster.

To change (increase) a length limit you need to run an ALTER TABLE which might take a long time to finish (due to a possible re-write of the table) during which an exclusive table lock is necessary.

Changing (i.e. dropping and re-creating) a check constraint is a very brief operation and only requires reading the table's data, it will not change any rows. So that is going to be a lot quicker (which in turn means the exclusive table lock will be held for a much shorter amount of time).

During operation there is no difference whatsovever between a text, a varchar or a varchar(5000) column.

share|improve this answer

It looks like there might be some performance difference if VARCHAR is regularly used to store very large strings, since "long strings are compressed by the system automatically" and "very long values are also stored in background tables." Theoretically this would mean that a high volume of requests for a very long string field would be slower than for a short string field. You'll probably never run into this problem, since names and addresses aren't going to be very long.

However, depending on how you're using these strings outside your database, you might want to add a practical limit to prevent abuse of the system. For example, if you're displaying the name and address on a form somewhere, you might not be able to display a whole paragraph of text in the "name" field, so it would make sense to limit the name column to something like 500 characters.

share|improve this answer
AFAIK there is no difference in TOASTing varchar and text fields. – dezso Jul 16 '12 at 18:33

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.