Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
> > By my count postgres would use 154 bytes for this record. Whereas in
> > fact there's no need for it to take more than 87 bytes. Almost 100%
> > overhead for varattlen headers and the padding they necessitate.
> The thing is, 100% extra space is cheap, but the processing power for 
> making the need for that extra space go away is not.

I think it would be good to see if we can extend the varlena data types
to support a shorter header for storing short byte values.  Looking at
the header now we have:

        #define VARATT_FLAG_EXTERNAL    0x80000000
        #define VARATT_FLAG_COMPRESSED  0x40000000
        #define VARATT_MASK_FLAGS       0xc0000000
        #define VARATT_MASK_SIZE        0x3fffffff

        #define VARATT_SIZEP(_PTR)  (((varattrib *)(_PTR))->va_header)

so there is precedent for overloading that header, but currently all the
headers are four bytes.  The big question is can a bit be allocated to
indicate a short byte header is being used?  Can we do this with minimal
performance impact for non-short values?

One test would be to adjust the masks above to assign one bit to be the
"I am a short value" header, and I think that leaves you with 5 bits ==
32, which is probably enough for a test.

  Bruce Momjian   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to