From: | Mario Weilguni <mweilguni(at)sime(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Paul Mackay <mackaypaul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Physical column size |
Date: | 2006-01-26 11:22:03 |
Message-ID: | 200601261222.03526.mweilguni@sime.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-performance pgsql-sql |
Am Donnerstag, 26. Januar 2006 11:06 schrieb Paul Mackay:
> Hi,
>
> I've created a table like this :
> CREATE TABLE tmp_A (
> c "char",
> i int4
> );
>
> And another one
> CREATE TABLE tmp_B (
> i int4,
> ii int4
> );
>
> I then inerted a bit more than 19 million rows in each table (exactly the
> same number of rows in each).
>
> The end result is that the physical size on disk used by table tmp_A is
> exactly the same as table tmp_B (as revealed by the pg_relation_size
> function) ! Given that a "char" field is supposed to be 1 byte in size and
> a int4 4 bytes, shouldn't the tmp_A use a smaller disk space ? Or is it
> that any value, whatever the type, requires at least 4 bytes to be stored ?
I think this is caused by alignment.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2006-01-26 11:26:36 | Re: many row updates |
Previous Message | Uroš Gruber | 2006-01-26 11:15:58 | many row updates |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jignesh K. Shah | 2006-01-26 14:56:14 | Re: PostgreSQL Solaris packages now in beta |
Previous Message | Paul Mackay | 2006-01-26 10:06:24 | Physical column size |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-01-26 11:22:34 | Re: filtering after join |
Previous Message | andrew | 2006-01-26 10:54:03 | Re: filtering after join |