From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Manfred Koizar" <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Large databases, performance |
Date: | 2002-10-07 15:42:12 |
Message-ID: | 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA4887A5A@m0114.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
> if i'm not mistaken, a char(n)/varchar(n) column is stored as a 32-bit
> integer specifying the length followed by as many characters as the
> length tells. On 32-bit Intel hardware this structure is aligned on a
> 4-byte boundary.
Yes.
> | opc0 char (3) no no 8 4
> | opc1 char (3) no no 8 4
> | opc2 char (3) no no 8 4
> Hackers, do you think it's possible to hack together a quick and dirty
> patch, so that string length is represented by one byte? IOW can a
> database be built that doesn't contain any char/varchar/text value
> longer than 255 characters in the catalog?
Since he is only using fixchar how about doing a fixchar implemetation, that
does not store length at all ? It is the same for every row anyways !
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jean-Luc Lachance | 2002-10-07 16:11:35 | Re: Efficient date range search? |
Previous Message | Michelle Konzack | 2002-10-07 15:31:51 | Re: Case insensitive columns |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2002-10-07 16:18:46 | Re: Moving to PostGres |
Previous Message | Antti Haapala | 2002-10-07 15:38:47 | Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marie G. Tuite | 2002-10-07 19:22:09 | sloooow query |
Previous Message | Manfred Koizar | 2002-10-07 15:22:41 | Re: Large databases, performance |