| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "McGehee, Robert" <Robert(dot)McGehee(at)geodecapital(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com>, Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Smaller data types use same disk space |
| Date: | 2012-07-25 20:35:06 |
| Message-ID: | 3201.1343248506@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"McGehee, Robert" <Robert(dot)McGehee(at)geodecapital(dot)com> writes:
> One might even imagine a future version of PostgreSQL using an
> efficient disk layout that may not match the table layout in order to
> avoid wasted space from padding.
Yeah, this has been discussed multiple times. The sticking point is
the extra infrastructure needed to have a physical column numbering
different from the user-visible numbering, and the 100% certainty of
introducing a lot of bugs due to bits of code using one type of column
number where they should have used the other. We'll probably get it
done someday, but don't hold your breath ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Phillips | 2012-07-25 20:49:02 | Re: BI tools and postgresql |
| Previous Message | Rachel Owsley | 2012-07-25 20:15:33 | Re: General guidance: Levenshtein distance versus other similarity algorithms |