2010/7/16 Brendan Jurd <dire...@gmail.com>: > On 16 July 2010 03:47, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> You might also look at testing with pg_column_size(). >> > > 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. > > However, even with 1 million rows of 0::numeric in my test table, > there was no difference at all in the on-disk relation size (36290560 > with 36249600 in the table and 32768 in the fsm). > > 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?
What about large ARRAY of numeric type? Once upon a time I develop tinyint for myself, the array size could get reduced. Regards, -- Hitoshi Harada -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
