Mark Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By the way, is alignment padding really a good use of disk space? Surely
> storage efficiency trumps minor CPU overhead in any I/O bound database.
Weren't you just complaining about excess palloc's ;-) ? Seriously,
I have no idea about the costs/benefit
Tom Lane wrote:
> Yawn ... given row overhead, alignment padding, etc, this is not nearly
> as big a deal as you make it ...
For a table with ten decimal columns with an average of 5 significant digits
apiece, each row could be reduced from ~170 bytes to about ~90 bytes, which
could be rather si
Mark Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I noticed the storage format for the numeric type is rather inefficient:
> ...
> A zero value uses two bytes total in Oracle, where in the current version of
> PostgreSQL it uses ten bytes.
Yawn ... given row overhead, alignment padding, etc, this is not
I noticed the storage format for the numeric type is rather inefficient:
typedef struct NumericData
{
int32 varlen; /* Variable size*/
int16 n_weight; /* Weight of 1st digit */
uint16 n_rscale; /* Result scale */
uint16 n
