From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <gokul007(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal for Null Bitmap Optimization(for Trailing NULLs) |
Date: | 2007-12-17 14:12:57 |
Message-ID: | 1197900777.12912.110.camel@ebony.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 08:47 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> This strikes me as such a corner case that it's likely not to be worth it.
>
> If you really want to save space along these lines, one better place to
> start might be mutable with column ordering - see
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00983.php . That
> would mean that we would be able to move nullable columns physically to
> the tail which in turn might help this suggestion have more effect.
Could be a good idea.
Currently on a 64-bit system we occupy 23 bytes for row header, so any
table with more than 8 columns will cause the null bitmap to overflow
and for us to use another 8 bytes.
OP's idea could avoid that in many cases, so the saving isn't 1 byte it
is fairly frequently going to be an 8 byte saving.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-12-17 14:44:10 | Re: Negative LIMIT and OFFSET? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-12-17 13:48:31 | pgsql: Improve wording. |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-12-17 14:52:59 | Re: Proposal for Null Bitmap Optimization(for TrailingNULLs) |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-12-17 13:47:54 | Re: Proposal for Null Bitmap Optimization(for Trailing NULLs) |