On 2010-10-27 20:28, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Postgres indexes are pretty compact, and oracle (internals I am not
> familiar with) also has to do MVCC type management, so I am suspecting
> your measurement is off (aka, operator error) or oracle is cheating
> somehow by optimizing away storage requirements somehow via some sort
> of tradeoff. However you still fail to explain why storage size is a
> problem. Are planning to port oracle to postgres on a volume that is
> 50% full? :-)
>
Pretty ignorant comment.. sorry ..
But when your database approaches something that is not mainly
fitting in memory, space directly translates into speed and a more
compact table utillizes the OS-page cache better. This is both
true for index and table page caching.
And the more compact your table the later you hit the stage where
you cant fit into memory anymore.
.. but if above isn't issues, then your statements are true.
--
Jesper
