On 4/23/15 11:45 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 23/04/15 18:24, Andres Freund wrote:
Whether that's feasible complexity wise is debatable, but it's certainly
possible.
I do wonder what, in realistic cases, is actually the bigger contributor
to the overhead. The tuple header or the padding we liberally add in
many cases...
The logical ordering patch + auto optimizations of column layout on
table creation/rewrite might help partially there.
But what seems to be clear is that we need more in depth analysis of
what really contributes most to the tuple size in various use-cases and
then we can debate what we can do about it.
Also, what Robert posted was that while we started at something like
15%-30% larger, we ended the test at 80% larger. That makes me think
that the bigger win is not in reducing tuple size but tackling bloat.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
