From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jameison Martin <jameisonb(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: patch submission: truncate trailing nulls from heap rows to reduce the size of the null bitmap |
Date: | 2012-08-09 14:27:12 |
Message-ID: | 1139.1344522432@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 17 April 2012 17:22, Jameison Martin <jameisonb(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>> The following patch truncates trailing null attributes from heap rows to
>> reduce the size of the row bitmap.
> This is an interesting patch, but its has had various comments made about it.
> When I look at this I see that it would change the NULL bitmap for all
> existing rows, which means it forces a complete unload/reload of data.
Huh? I thought it would only change how *new* tuples were stored.
Old tuples ought to continue to work fine.
I'm not really convinced that it's a good idea in the larger scheme
of things --- your point in a nearby thread that micro-optimizing
storage space at the expense of all else is not good engineering
applies here. But I don't see that it forces data reload. Or if
it does, that should be easily fixable.
> ... Have another flag which indicates
> when a partial trailing col trimmed NULL bitmap is in use.
That might be useful for forensic purposes, but on the whole I suspect
it's just added complexity (and eating up a valuable infomask bit)
for relatively little gain.
> ... decide whether a table will benefit from full or partial bitmap and
> set that in the tupledesc. That way the tupledesc will show
> heap_form_tuple which kind of null bitmap is preferred for new tuples.
> That preference might be settable by user on or off, but the default
> would be for postgres to decide that for us based upon null stats etc,
> which we would decide at ANALYZE time.
And that seems like huge overcomplication. I think we could probably
do fine with some very simple fixed policy, like "don't bother with
this for tables of less than N columns", where N is maybe 64 or so
and chosen to match the MAXALIGN boundary where there actually could
be some savings from trimming the null bitmap.
(Note: I've not read the patch, so maybe Jameison already did something
of the sort.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2012-08-09 14:29:35 | Regarding Patch [Rearrange and cross-reference notes on sequences and rollback exemption] |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-08-09 14:24:39 | Re: Prevent restored WAL files from being archived again Re: Unnecessary WAL archiving after failover |