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
