On 28/09/18 21:51, Vladimir Ryabtsev wrote:
> > That means, if your block size was bigger, then you would have bigger space allocated for one single record.
> But if I INSERT second, third ... hundredth record in the table, the size remains 8K.
> So my point is that if one decides to increase block size, increasing storage space is not so significant, because it does not set minimum storage unit for a row.
>
ah, yes, correct. Now we are on the same page.
Good luck with the rest of things you are going to try out, and let us know your findings.
regards,
fabio pardi
> vlad