Re: Padding on 64-bit

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Padding on 64-bit
Date: 2007-05-29 20:01:45
Message-ID: 16938.1180468905@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>>> Specifically, I'm interested if I actually end up making my table any
>>> smaller if I move from 64-bit integer primary key to 32-bit.
>>
>> Depends what else is in the row ... the overall row will get padded to
>> MAXALIGN, but if you were wasting 4 bytes on alignment before, then you
>> win.

> Ah, I see. Followup: Does it make a measurable performance difference
> for things like join or filtering operations, in case the storage size
> ends up being the same?

Hard to say. int8 is pass-by-reference, which is certainly slower than
pass-by-value, but you'd have to measure to see if it makes any
noticeable difference in your queries.

(I imagine someday we'll get around to allowing int8 to be pass-by-value
on 64-bit platforms.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2007-05-29 21:20:11 Re: Padding on 64-bit
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2007-05-29 19:57:29 Re: Fixing insecure security definer functions