Re: Terrible performance on wide selects

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
To: Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Terrible performance on wide selects
Date: 2003-01-23 17:42:26
Message-ID: 1043343746.1368.6.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

Dann Corbit kirjutas N, 23.01.2003 kell 02:22:
> [snip]
> > So (for instance) if you have 12 variable fields, you would
> > store 12 integers at the start of the record.
>
> Additionally, you could implicitly size the integers from the properties
> of the column. A varchar(255) would only need an unsigned char to store
> the offset, but a varchar(80000) would require an unsigned int.

I guess that the pointer could always be 16-bit, as the offset inside a
tuple will never be more (other issues constrain max page size to 32K)

varchar(80000) will use TOAST (another file) anyway, but this will be
hidden inside the field storage in the page)

> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
--
Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2003-01-23 17:44:53 Re: Foreign key wierdness
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2003-01-23 17:38:13 Re: Options for growth

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message alexandre :: aldeia digital 2003-01-23 19:49:37 Re: Same query, same performance
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2003-01-23 17:00:02 Re: Same query, same performance