From: | Erik Sjoblom <sjoblom65(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Unexpected table size usage for small composite arrays |
Date: | 2024-10-22 22:45:41 |
Message-ID: | CAAW=00UjRF8oE-A3BgzNYD_Tj+VLe0v0Hr1oyxhcbg8aXq1=Pg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks Tom for your response!
Yes, I did expect that the first element should take 24+12 bytes and let's
round that to 50 bytes.
If I store another element, I would expect another 12. (or 16 depending on
padding) and take say ~65 bytes. I'm seeing close to 100 bytes.
If I have 3 elements, it's using 150, 4 -> 200, etc all the way up
to around 40 elements as it seems to hit the 2KB limit and starts
compressing the data.
I don't see why it's using 50 bytes per element. There should be just one
24 byte header for the array, not one per element
Anders
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 6:34 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Erik Sjoblom <sjoblom65(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I’m observing a storage behavior with arrays in a table that differs from
> > my expectations, and I’d appreciate your insights. I was to store key
> value
> > pairs in a very dense data model. I don't haver the requirement of search
> > so that's why I was thinking an array of a composite type would work
> well.
> > I can see that padding might be involved using the int4 and int8
> > combination but there is more overhead. Anyone know where the following
> it
> > coming from?
>
> Composite values use the same 24-byte tuple headers as table rows do.
> So you'd be looking at 40 bytes per array element in this example.
> A large array of them would probably compress pretty well, but
> it's never going to be cheap.
>
> Can you store the int4's and int8's in two parallel arrays?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-10-22 22:50:31 | Re: Unexpected table size usage for small composite arrays |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-10-22 22:34:52 | Re: Unexpected table size usage for small composite arrays |