Re: Physical column size

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Paul Mackay" <mackaypaul(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Physical column size
Date: 2006-03-03 14:53:47
Message-ID: 420.1141397627@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-performance pgsql-sql

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> 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.

Probably not, because the row-as-a-whole has alignment requirements too.
In this example you'll just move the pad bytes from one place to
another.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Just Someone 2006-03-03 15:06:53 Re: SELinux strangeness with 8.1.2 and 8.1.3
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-03-03 14:41:50 Re: Postgres automatically inserts chr(13) whenever chr(10) is inserted

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Adriaanse 2006-03-04 01:10:52 Bad row estimates
Previous Message Ragnar 2006-03-03 10:27:59 Re: Physical column size

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tilman Baumann 2006-03-03 17:01:59 how to make infinite intervals?
Previous Message Andrew Sullivan 2006-03-03 12:47:12 Re: Sequential scan where Index scan expected (update)