Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > macros too.
> > Would be a nice space-saver if you have tables with many small text fields.
> > Dig out that old message of mine concerning block size and check out item #4.
> > Excerpted below if you've finally deleted it... :) :)
> > > Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 13:38:10 -0500
> > > From: aixssd!darrenk (Darren King)
> > > Subject: [HACKERS] Max size of data types and tuples.
> > > ...
> > > 4. Since only 13 bits are needed for storing the size of these
> > > textual fields in a tuple, could PostgreSql use a 16-bit int to
> > > store it? Currently, the size is padded to four bytes in the
> > > tuple and this eats space if you have many textual fields.
> > > Without further digging, I'm assuming that the size is double-word
> > > aligned so that the actual text starts on a double-word boundary.
> > > ...
> I had forgotten about your mention of this. I am running some tests
> now, and things look promising. However, if we go to 64k or 128k
> tuples, we would be in trouble. (We can do 64k tuples by changing the
Also, multi-representation feature allows to have 2Gb in varlena fields.
> 'special variable' length value from -1 to 0.
Yes, it's way.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1998-01-22 02:49:00|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Max size of data types and tuples. (fwd)|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1998-01-22 01:06:11|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] varchar(), text,char() overhead|