From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, btober(at)seaworthysys(dot)com, scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, m_tessier(at)sympatico(dot)ca, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How many fields in a table are too many |
Date: | 2003-06-28 19:17:40 |
Message-ID: | 200306281917.h5SJHeX14044@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | weigelt | 2003-06-28 21:52:14 | Re: How many fields in a table are too many |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-28 18:43:07 | Re: How many fields in a table are too many |