| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing tuple overhead |
| Date: | 2015-04-23 16:45:37 |
| Message-ID: | 553921B1.7080204@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 23/04/15 18:24, Andres Freund wrote:
> Whether that's feasible complexity wise is debatable, but it's certainly
> possible.
>
>
> I do wonder what, in realistic cases, is actually the bigger contributor
> to the overhead. The tuple header or the padding we liberally add in
> many cases...
>
The logical ordering patch + auto optimizations of column layout on
table creation/rewrite might help partially there.
But what seems to be clear is that we need more in depth analysis of
what really contributes most to the tuple size in various use-cases and
then we can debate what we can do about it.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Radovan Jablonovsky | 2015-04-23 17:00:26 | adding more information about process(es) cpu and memory usage |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-04-23 16:42:24 | Re: Reducing tuple overhead |