From: | "sathiya psql" <sathiya(dot)psql(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Craig Ringer" <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Having MANY MANY empty columns in database |
Date: | 2008-03-22 09:08:25 |
Message-ID: | f966c2ee0803220208p3b47585bg788139a4a7e85bd7@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>
> OK, so your tables all have the same fields (columns), as if you used
> CREATE TABLE new_table ( LIKE some_template_table ) ?
It will contain some other unique columns for each table.
> meaning that they contain NULL values in that field for every record?
what is the value it may contain i don't know ?? we are not filling any
value !!
>
> > If you drop those columns we will gain any performance or not.....
>
I need to test... HOW to test the overall performance of database..
> However, I recall hearing that PostgreSQL keeps a null bitmap and doesn't
> use any storage for null fields. If that is correct then you probably won't
> be paying much of a price in disk I/O, but there might still be other costs.
>
if it is sure that it will not make disk I/O then it is ok
>
> I can't help wondering why you have all those useless columns in the
> first place, and why you have so many identically structured tables.
>
these are not useless columns... it should be used to update the owner of
the record, updated time, created and other stuffs, but nobody is using now.
>
> --
> Craig Ringer
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Giorgio Valoti | 2008-03-22 14:01:50 | Views and functions returning sets of records |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2008-03-22 08:24:17 | Re: Having MANY MANY empty columns in database |