Hi Greg:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 4:08 PM, greg <gregory.jevardat@unige.ch> wrote:
> I cannot find any documentation on the space taken by a double precision
> array. And the few tests I did surprise me.
>
> Here are a few tries I did to understand
> select pg_column_size(1.1::double precision) return 8 --- as
> expected
> select pg_column_size('{}'::double precision[]) return 16 --- ok
> maybe an array header
> select pg_column_size('{1.111}'::double precision[]) return 32 --- I
> expected 16+ sizeof(double) = 24
>
> select pg_column_size('{1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.0,7.0,8.0,9.0,10.0}'::double
> precision[]) return 104 --- I'am lost because I expected 10*16 + 16 = 176.
> It is neither 16+10*8 (96)
That's not a very good set of tests, look at mine ( slightly edited for size );
apc=# select pg_column_size('{}'::double precision[]);
16
apc=# select pg_column_size('{1.0}'::double precision[]);
32
apc=# select pg_column_size('{1.0,2.0}'::double precision[]);
40
apc=# select pg_column_size('{1.0,2.0,3.0}'::double precision[]);
48
apc=# select pg_column_size('{1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0}'::double precision[]);
56
Here I already expect 8*n+24, so the data point for 10
apc=# select pg_column_size('{1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.0,7.0,8.0,9.0,10.0}'::double
precision[]);
104
Does not surprise me.
> So what is happening behind the scene, I did not found any documentation.
> Since the queries are done in memory I suppose no compression is going on.
> Furthermore select
> pg_column_size('{1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0}'::double
> precision[]) return 104 as well. So I discard compression.
You're hunting for wild things, as said in some other places, headers,
special case for dimensionless arrays, it's a classic thing in
databases.
> The whole point is that in the application I work on, we store double arrays
> as bytea (using some serialization before storing the data).
> I was very surprised to see that the storage of an array of double take more
> space using double precision[] than serializing it and storing it into a
> bytea.
Not too much, just 20 bytes more per column, unless you play
compression tricks. Unless you have lots of small columns, I doubt
serializing/deserializing it is worth the hassle. Postgres does not
always use the most compact form for storage. In fact I would be
greatly surprised that any database stores an array ( which can be
multidimensional, I do not know if other databases have single
dimensional array types ) in a more compact way than an specialized
serialization format for one dimensional double arrays.
Francisco Olarte.
