From: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fixed length data types issue |
Date: | 2006-09-08 13:33:58 |
Message-ID: | 20060908133358.GB24823@mark.mielke.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 08:50:57AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
> > But it's largely true for OLTP applications too. The more compact the
> > data the more tuples fit on a page and the greater the chance you
> > have the page you need in cache.
> But a linear amount of more RAM is still more affordable than a CPU that
> is 100 times faster, which is about what some of the proposed schemes
> would require.
100 times faster?
I don't think it has been proven that a change in how data is stored
would result in an increase in CPU usage. It's an assumption. It might
be correct. It might not.
I guess this is where patches speak louder than words... :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Praveen Kumar N | 2006-09-08 13:51:41 | Re: postgresql shared buffers |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2006-09-08 13:32:21 | Re: postgresql shared buffers |