On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:48:06AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How about adding a new 2-byte field to header for in-page c_tid poiner
> > for HOT ?
> We just finished sweating blood to get the tuple header size down to 23
> bytes from 27 (which saves 8 bytes not 4 if MAXALIGN=8). We are not
> going to blow that again on HOT.
I haven't had enough time to follow all of the details here - but if the
ability to update a row with minimal overhead, as long as there is extra
room in the same block is a great idea (it sounds appealing to me) - could
it be done with just a 1 byte list? 24 instead of 23 for the tuple size.
I'll try to catch up at some point. :-)
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 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
