| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| 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 16:19:36 |
| Message-ID: | 5869.1343319576@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Mike Christensen <mike(at)kitchenpc(dot)com> wrote:
>> I don't really think you'd need to decouple the internal column order
>> from what the user sees. A REORDER COLUMNS command should re-build
>> the table with the columns in the specified order.
> That's a controversial point: doing it that way makes reordering of
> large tables highly impractical.
In particular, if the implementation works like that, you hardly need
any system support at all. You can do the equivalent today with a few
SQL commands: create a new table by selecting columns from the old,
drop old table, rename new into place. The universal assumption has
been that REORDER COLUMNS needs to work by just adjusting a few catalog
entries, or it's not worth bothering with.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Christensen | 2012-07-26 16:20:58 | Re: Smaller data types use same disk space |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-07-26 16:12:44 | Re: Smaller data types use same disk space |