From: | "Paul Mackay" <mackaypaul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Physical column size |
Date: | 2006-03-03 10:03:24 |
Message-ID: | 786c2f6d0603030203m3b7c62a1k6950ceca066dc5ce@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 inserted 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 | Rick Gigger | 2006-03-03 10:03:33 | Re: query timeout |
Previous Message | Ragnar | 2006-03-03 09:59:00 | Re: query timeout |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-03-03 10:23:21 | Re: Physical column size |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2006-03-03 04:01:39 | Re: Like 'name%' is not using index |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-03-03 10:23:21 | Re: Physical column size |
Previous Message | Ragnar | 2006-03-03 09:51:17 | Re: Why do I get these results????? |