On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 08:47 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> This strikes me as such a corner case that it's likely not to be worth it.
> If you really want to save space along these lines, one better place to
> start might be mutable with column ordering - see
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-12/msg00983.php . That
> would mean that we would be able to move nullable columns physically to
> the tail which in turn might help this suggestion have more effect.
Could be a good idea.
Currently on a 64-bit system we occupy 23 bytes for row header, so any
table with more than 8 columns will cause the null bitmap to overflow
and for us to use another 8 bytes.
OP's idea could avoid that in many cases, so the saving isn't 1 byte it
is fairly frequently going to be an 8 byte saving.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Sullivan||Date: 2007-12-17 14:44:10|
|Subject: Re: Negative LIMIT and OFFSET?|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2007-12-17 13:48:31|
|Subject: pgsql: Improve wording.|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2007-12-17 14:52:59|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for Null Bitmap Optimization(for TrailingNULLs)|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2007-12-17 13:47:54|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for Null Bitmap Optimization(for Trailing