Re: Physical column size

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: "Paul Mackay" <mackaypaul(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Physical column size
Date: 2006-03-03 10:23:21
Message-ID: 200603031123.22453.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-performance pgsql-sql

Am Freitag, 3. März 2006 11:03 schrieb Paul Mackay:
> I've created a table like this :
> CREATE TABLE tmp_A (
> c "char",
> i int4
> );
>
> And another one
> CREATE TABLE tmp_B (
> i int4,
> ii int4
> );

> The end result is that the physical size on disk used by table tmp_A is
> exactly the same as table tmp_B (as revealed by the pg_relation_size
> function) !

An int4 field is required to be aligned at a 4-byte boundary internally, so
there are 3 bytes wasted between tmp_A.c and tmp_A.i. If you switch the
order of the fields you should see space savings. (Note, however, that the
per-row overhead is about 32 bytes, so you'll probably only save about 10%
overall, rather than the 37.5% that one might expect.)

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-03-03 10:23:58 Re: Physical column size
Previous Message Csaba Nagy 2006-03-03 10:14:20 Re: query timeout

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-03-03 10:23:58 Re: Physical column size
Previous Message Paul Mackay 2006-03-03 10:03:24 Physical column size

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-03-03 10:23:58 Re: Physical column size
Previous Message Paul Mackay 2006-03-03 10:03:24 Physical column size