On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Saleh, Amgad H (Amgad) wrote:
>
> Stephan:
>
> In each table we're storing the max. string length.
>
> For example:
>
> for TEST_1, we're storing 'abcdefghjk' and 'lmnop'
> for TEST_2, we're storing 'abcdefghjk' and 'lmnopqrstu'
> for TEST_3, we're storing 'abcdefghjk' and
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Saleh, Amgad H (Amgad) wrote:
> Stephan / Stephen
>
> We know about the overhead and do understand the math you've provided.
> This is not the question we're asking. We've just provided the table definitions as
> examples.
>
> The real question was, even with the 52 & 56 (assu
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Seum-Lim Gan wrote:
> we have a question about the pagesize in PostgreSQL:
>
> Using different pagesizes: 4K, 8K, 16K, 32K, when we store different
> record sizes
> such as in the following example:
>
> CREATE TABLE TEST_1 (
> F1 VARCHAR(10),
> F2 VARCHAR(5) );
>
> CREATE TABL
On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 10:52, Seum-Lim Gan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> we have a question about the pagesize in PostgreSQL:
>
> Using different pagesizes: 4K, 8K, 16K, 32K, when we store different
> record sizes
> such as in the following example:
>
> CREATE TABLE TEST_1 (
> F1 VARCHAR(10),
> F2 VARCHA
Hi all,
we have a question about the pagesize in PostgreSQL:
Using different pagesizes: 4K, 8K, 16K, 32K, when we store different
record sizes
such as in the following example:
CREATE TABLE TEST_1 (
F1 VARCHAR(10),
F2 VARCHAR(5) );
CREATE TABLE TEST_2 (
F1 VARCHAR(10),
F2 VARCHAR(10) );
we're c
