size cost for null fields - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Vance Maverick
Subject size cost for null fields
Date
Msg-id DAA9CBC6D4A7584ABA0B6BEA7EC6FC0B947C8D@hq-exch01.corp.pgp.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: size cost for null fields
List pgsql-general
I have a table with lots and lots of rows (into the millions), and I want to add some information to it.  The new data
consistsof a VARCHAR and a BYTEA, and it will almost always be null -- let's say only one row in 10,000 will have
non-nullvalues.  I'm trying to decide whether to add the new data as columns in the existing table, or a side table
linkedby FK.
 

Looking at the Database Page Layout page <http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/static/storage-page-layout.html>, it seems
tome that I'll pay the minimum storage cost for these two fields (4 bytes for the VARCHAR, 4 bytes for the BYTEA) in
everyrow, regardless of whether they're null.  When the fields are null, there'll be bits set for them in the null
mask,but the alignment and size of the row won't change -- everything else will be placed as if there were zero-length
valuesin the two fields.
 

Do I have this right?  If so, the side table sounds like the right choice....

    Vance

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Colin Wetherbee
Date:
Subject: Re: query
Next
From: Richard Huxton
Date:
Subject: Re: user name and password woes