On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 08:50:57AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
> > But it's largely true for OLTP applications too. The more compact the
> > data the more tuples fit on a page and the greater the chance you
> > have the page you need in cache.
> But a linear amount of more RAM is still more affordable than a CPU that
> is 100 times faster, which is about what some of the proposed schemes
> would require.
100 times faster?
I don't think it has been proven that a change in how data is stored
would result in an increase in CPU usage. It's an assumption. It might
be correct. It might not.
I guess this is where patches speak louder than words... :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
