| From: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Mnogosearch (Was: Re: website doc search is ... ) |
| Date: | 2004-01-02 03:49:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20040101234841.W913@ganymede.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > I'm still loading the 'WITHOUT OIDS' database ... should I expect that,
> > with CLUSTERing, its performance would be slightly better yet, or would
> > the difference be negligible?
>
> I think the difference will be marginal, but worth doing; you're
> reducing the row size from 40 bytes to 36 if I counted correctly,
> so circa-10% I/O saving, no?
>
> 24 bytes minimum 7.4 HeapTupleHeader
> 4 bytes OID
> 12 bytes three int4 fields
>
> On a machine with 8-byte MAXALIGN, this would not help, but on
> Intel hardware it should.
I take it there is no way of drop'ng OIDs after the fact, eh? :)
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-02 04:09:23 | Re: Mnogosearch (Was: Re: website doc search is ... ) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-01-02 03:37:43 | Re: Mnogosearch (Was: Re: website doc search is ... ) |