Re: Select count(*), the sequel

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Select count(*), the sequel
Date: 2010-10-26 22:51:31
Message-ID: 2091.1288133491@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I don't think this is due to fillfactor - the default fillfactor is
> 100, and anyway we ARE larger on disk than Oracle. We really need to
> do something about that, in the changes to NUMERIC in 9.1 are a step
> in that direction, but I think a lot more work is needed.

Of course, the chances of doing anything more than extremely-marginal
kluges without breaking on-disk compatibility are pretty tiny. Given
where we are at the moment, I see no appetite for forced dump-and-reloads
for several years to come. So I don't foresee that anything is likely
to come of such efforts in the near future. Even if somebody had a
great idea that would make things smaller without any other penalty,
which I'm not sure I believe either.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2010-10-26 23:16:53 Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-10-26 22:50:37 Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle