| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, 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 19:33:48 |
| Message-ID: | 5539491C.6040405@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/23/15 11:45 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> 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.
Also, what Robert posted was that while we started at something like
15%-30% larger, we ended the test at 80% larger. That makes me think
that the bigger win is not in reducing tuple size but tackling bloat.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-04-23 19:40:36 | Re: Turning off HOT/Cleanup sometimes |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2015-04-23 19:30:03 | pg_dump: largeobject behavior issues (possible bug) |