| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mathieu Arnold <mat(at)mat(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | Heni Lolov <hal_bg(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: OIDs / noOIDs tables? |
| Date: | 2002-03-12 13:15:27 |
| Message-ID: | 29640.1015938927@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Mathieu Arnold <mat(at)mat(dot)cc> writes:
> ... there's a bit more info in the 7.2 database now...
> so I believe that without oids give you a bit smaller databases.
OIDs vs. no OIDs makes absolutely *zero* difference in disk space.
The tuple header overhead is the same either way.
(Well, okay, it saves you one pg_attribute row per OID-less table.
Wow...)
The only reason for the no-OIDs feature is to postpone wraparound
of the OID counter.
regards, tom lane
PS: probably your space savings from updating to 7.2 is a transient
result of having rebuilt the indexes.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2002-03-12 16:23:29 | Dependence beetwen Function |
| Previous Message | Mathieu Arnold | 2002-03-12 09:00:18 | Re: OIDs / noOIDs tables? |