From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sébastien TANIERE <seb(dot)taniere(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How much size saved by updating column to NULL ? |
Date: | 2024-01-12 13:58:48 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYq2YF7dX0CvkoGJQze76J2hZx5Zima47AxabpiO+GQig@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Friday, January 12, 2024, Sébastien TANIERE <seb(dot)taniere(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> Hello,
> in my company, some columns rarely used in a PG database 14.8 have been
> set to NULL in order to save disk space (datecreation & acteurcreation in
> following table) .
>
> create table example
> (
> id varchar(25) not null,
> datecreation timestamp(6),
> acteurcreation varchar(50),
> valeurunit smallint
> )
>
> I am wondering if it is really useful for every type of column.
> Intuitively, i would say that it does not save space for fixed field
> datecreation as it is a fixed size column.
>
> Do we save 8 bytes by timestamp column updated to NULL or not ?
>
>
You probably should just measure it yourself. But yes, the representation
of null in a tuple is the absence of data and a bit in the nulls bitmap.
So there is overhead but also savings. The net effect is case specific.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kiran K V | 2024-01-12 15:23:06 | Issue with loading unicode characters with copy command |
Previous Message | Jeremiah Bauer | 2024-01-12 12:34:37 | Re: [EXTERNAL]Re: Refresh Materialized View Issue |