On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 4:05 PM, nathanelrick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > by your message i understand you agree that it's a good thing to > consolidate the table ? > Yes, probably, but first try storing a few thousand of the combined record and see what the storage requirement is in reality. Theory is fine, but practice is practical. The gstat utility will report on the actual space used by those rows, average stored length, records, page fill level, and other useful stuff. Look at those results before you try to reduce the size of the records. The changes may not be necessary. > > Why not use a 16K page? > > i need first to do test ... 16k pages use Twice more memory, and in the > database their is around 500 different tables, not sure all of them will > like the 16k ... as far as i see now in the few test i have done it's that > 16k is always better or very similar to 8k in speed ... i thing i will > first double the memory of the server before to do that With a large page size, you may be able to reduce the number of pages you keep in cache - each data page will hold more records, each pointer page will have more than twice as many pointers, each index page will have more entries, each transaction inventory page will have more than twice as many transactions... Good luck, Ann [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
