From: | "Ryan" <pgsql-performance(at)seahat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How are null's stored? |
Date: | 2003-05-12 18:58:03 |
Message-ID: | 10995.65.102.128.233.1052765883.squirrel@fordparts.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
> Jim,
>
>> I have a 40M row table I need to import data into, then use to create
>> a bunch of more normalized tables. Right now all fields are varchar,
>> but I'm going to change this so that fields that are less than a
>> certain size are just char. Question is, how much impact is there from
>> char being nullable vs. not nullable? src/include/access/htup.h
>> indicates that nulls are stored in a bitmap, so I'd suspect that I
>> should see a decent space savings from not having to include length
>> information all the time... (most of these small fields are always the
>> same size no matter what...)
>
> This is moot. PostgreSQL stores CHAR(x), VARCHAR, and TEXT in the same
> internal format, which includes length information in the page header.
> So you save no storage space by converting to CHAR(x) ... you might
> even make your tables *larger* because of the space padding.
So if the internal format is identical, why does the INFERNAL database
ignore indexes when you have a text compared to a varchar?
Ryan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2003-05-12 19:01:56 | How are null's stored? |
Previous Message | Jenny - | 2003-05-12 18:20:21 | compiling |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2003-05-12 19:01:56 | How are null's stored? |
Previous Message | Steve Crawford | 2003-05-12 15:56:02 | Re: realtime data inserts |