From: | "Chris Hoover" <revoohc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org Admin" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | What is the difference in storage between a blank string and null? |
Date: | 2008-04-11 20:02:36 |
Message-ID: | 1d219a6f0804111302r4adaf97dn4ecb0549c5ae85dc@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
I'm doing some testing on how to decrease our database size as I work on a
partitioning scheme.
I have found that if I have the database store all empty strings as nulls, I
get a significant savings over saving them as blank strings (i.e. '').
Below is an example of savings I am seeing for the same table:
In my test case, storing empty strings give me a table size of 20,635,648
Storing empty strings as nulls gives me a table size of: 5,742,592.
As you can see, storing empty strings as nulls is saving me approximately
72% on this table. So, I am wanting to understand what Postgres is doing
differently with the nulls. Would someone kindly enlighten me on this.
(P.S. I am using a nullif(trim(column),'') in my partition and view rules to
store the nulls, and coalesce(column,'') to give my application the data
back without nulls.)
Thanks,
Chris
PG 8.1
--
Tired of HIGH Gas prices? Visit http://colafuelguy.mybpi.com to start
saving at the pump no matter where you live!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2008-04-11 21:24:40 | Re: What is the difference in storage between a blank string and null? |
Previous Message | Shane Ambler | 2008-04-11 16:50:53 | Re: Retore Postgres DB without dump |