On 16/07/10 13:44, Brendan Jurd wrote:
>
> pg_column_size() did return the results I was expecting.
> pg_column_size(0::numeric) is 8 bytes on 8.4 and it's 6 bytes on HEAD
> with your patch.
> At this scale we should be seeing around 2 million bytes saved, but
> instead the tables are identical. Is there some kind of disconnect in
> how the new short numeric is making it to the disk, or perhaps another
> effect interfering with my test?
You've probably got rows being aligned to a 4-byte boundary. You're
probably not going to see any change unless you have a couple of 1-byte
columns that get placed after the numeric. If you went from 10 bytes
down to 8, that should be visible.
-- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
