From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Phoenix Kiula <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: NULL saves disk space? |
Date: | 2011-04-28 14:59:39 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTimCGA9qDsAorBOr=FqibRVxhjhkHw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Phoenix Kiula <phoenix(dot)kiula(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Possibly a dumb question but there isn't much about this.
> http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=postgresql+null+value+disk+space
> I have some BOOLEAN columns. 90% of the cases of the columns is FALSE. Do I
> save disk space by having them as NULL instead of FALSE? So my application
> would have conditional code for NULL and TRUE, instead of FALSE and TRUE.
> Thanks...
Yes, NULL values take no additional space, but the row needs a null
bitmap so it is possible that if this was the only NULL then it could
occupy more space.
If you have multiple columns, then you should use NULLs.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alban Hertroys | 2011-04-28 15:29:33 | Re: GIN index not used |
Previous Message | David Boreham | 2011-04-28 14:48:32 | Re: SSDs with Postgresql? |