Am Freitag, 11. Oktober 2002 14:12 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> writes:
> > Is it possible to get rid of the "t_natts" fields in the tuple header?
> > Is this field only for "alter table add/drop" support?
> "Only"? A lot of people consider that pretty important ...
With "only" I mean it's an administrative task which requires operator intervenation anyways, and it's a seldom needed operation which may take longer, when
queries become faster.
> But removing 2 bytes isn't going to save anything, on most machines,
> because of alignment considerations.
ok, I did not consider alignment, but the question remains, is this easily doable? Especially because only one another byte has to be saved for
real saving on many architectures, which is t_hoff. IMO t_hoff is not useful because it can be computed easily. This would give 20 byte headers instead of 23 (24) bytes as it's now.
This is 17% saved, and if it's not too complicated it might be worth to consider.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Ludwig Lim||Date: 2002-10-11 14:34:58|
|Subject: Re: Compile test with gcc 3.2|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2002-10-11 12:12:50|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] number of attributes in page files? |
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dave Cramer||Date: 2002-10-11 14:30:30|
|Subject: Re: Out of memory error on huge resultset|
|Previous:||From: Shridhar Daithankar||Date: 2002-10-11 13:40:26|
|Subject: Re: Peer to peer replication of Postgresql databases|