From: | Paul Mackay <mackaypaul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Physical column size |
Date: | 2006-01-26 10:06:24 |
Message-ID: | 786c2f6d0601260206k2201a548p48af7c7fc085d3b2@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance pgsql-sql |
Hi,
I've created a table like this :
CREATE TABLE tmp_A (
c "char",
i int4
);
And another one
CREATE TABLE tmp_B (
i int4,
ii int4
);
I then inerted a bit more than 19 million rows in each table (exactly the
same number of rows in each).
The end result is that the physical size on disk used by table tmp_A is
exactly the same as table tmp_B (as revealed by the pg_relation_size
function) ! Given that a "char" field is supposed to be 1 byte in size and a
int4 4 bytes, shouldn't the tmp_A use a smaller disk space ? Or is it that
any value, whatever the type, requires at least 4 bytes to be stored ?
Thanks,
Paul
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | andrew | 2006-01-26 11:01:22 | Re: user defined function |
Previous Message | Alban Hertroys | 2006-01-26 10:05:15 | Re: filtering after join |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mario Weilguni | 2006-01-26 11:22:03 | Re: Physical column size |
Previous Message | Robert Lor | 2006-01-26 01:46:12 | PostgreSQL Solaris packages now in beta |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-01-26 10:27:05 | Re: filtering after join |
Previous Message | Markus Schaber | 2006-01-26 09:42:54 | Re: Changing the transaction isolation level within the stored |