| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Pie-in-sky dreaming about reworking tuple layout entirely |
| Date: | 2006-10-03 21:06:09 |
| Message-ID: | b42b73150610031406v4ac79e1ak7b8d43109a8f0d8a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/3/06, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I can't shake the feeling that merely tweaking the way our varlenas work with
> a shortvarlena or with compressed varlena headers is missing the real source
> of our headaches. It seems very strange to me to be trying to step through a
> tuple with length bits at the head of every field. It's a lot of work spent
> dealing with a terribly inconvenient format when we can pick the format to be
> whatever we like.
one advantage of the current system is that columns with nulls do not
require any storage. so you can alter table add column for free on a
really big table. ISTM that your approch would require moving all the
static fields in if you added a static field regardless, right?
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-10-03 21:06:47 | Re: PG qsort vs. Solaris |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2006-10-03 21:03:59 | Re: PG qsort vs. Solaris |