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
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 |