| From: | Craig Ringer <ringerc(at)ringerc(dot)id(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Mike Christensen <mike(at)kitchenpc(dot)com>, "McGehee, Robert" <Robert(dot)McGehee(at)geodecapital(dot)com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com>, Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Smaller data types use same disk space |
| Date: | 2012-07-26 00:13:26 |
| Message-ID: | 50108BA6.7020605@ringerc.id.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 07/26/2012 07:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's more or less the same discussion. To do either one you need to
> decouple the internal column order from what the user sees. I do not
> think we'd bother with building the infrastructure involved if the
> only application were squeezing out alignment padding;
Is there any way to determine the amount of space lost to alignment
padding within a row at the moment - without creation of dummy tables? I
don't see any admin functions for determining the on-disk size of a row.
Of course, I've been known to be hopelessly blind before.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chris Bartlett | 2012-07-26 02:25:49 | View definition and schema search path bug or expected behaviour? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-25 23:12:14 | Re: Smaller data types use same disk space |