On 16/07/10 13:44, Brendan Jurd wrote:
pg_column_size() did return the results I was expecting. pg_column_size(0::numeric) is 8 bytes on 8.4 and it's 6 bytes on HEAD with your patch.
At this scale we should be seeing around 2 million bytes saved, but instead the tables are identical. Is there some kind of disconnect in how the new short numeric is making it to the disk, or perhaps another effect interfering with my test?
You've probably got rows being aligned to a 4-byte boundary. You're probably not going to see any change unless you have a couple of 1-byte columns that get placed after the numeric. If you went from 10 bytes down to 8, that should be visible.
-- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
