Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > However, I am not sure how useful NOT NULL is in practice because there
> > are lots of columns that don't specify NOT NULL but have mostly nulls or
> > mostly non-nulls, which kills our caching --- what I was hoping to do
> > some day was to cache the null bitmask and offsets of the previous tuple
> > and use those if the new tuple has the same null bitmask as the previous
> > tuple.
> We already cache fairly effectively in cases where there are no nulls.
> I'm not sure it's worth trying to do something with the idea that two
> adjacent tuples might have nulls in the same places.
I was thinking of trying it and seeing how often it would be a win,
because right now, when we hit a null, our cache is dead.
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: weigelt||Date: 2003-06-28 21:52:14|
|Subject: Re: How many fields in a table are too many|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-06-28 18:43:07|
|Subject: Re: How many fields in a table are too many |