Physical column size
От | Paul Mackay |
---|---|
Тема | Physical column size |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 786c2f6d0603030203m3b7c62a1k6950ceca066dc5ce@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Physical column size
Re: Physical column size Re: Physical column size |
Список | pgsql-general |
Hi,
I've created a table like this :
CREATE TABLE tmp_A (
c "char",
i int4
);
And another one
CREATE TABLE tmp_B (
i int4,
ii int4
);
I then inserted a bit more than 19 million rows in each table (exactly the same number of rows in each).
The end result is that the physical size on disk used by table tmp_A is exactly the same as table tmp_B (as revealed by the pg_relation_size function) ! Given that a "char" field is supposed to be 1 byte in size and a int4 4 bytes, shouldn't the tmp_A use a smaller disk space ? Or is it that any value, whatever the type, requires at least 4 bytes to be stored ?
Thanks,
I've created a table like this :
CREATE TABLE tmp_A (
c "char",
i int4
);
And another one
CREATE TABLE tmp_B (
i int4,
ii int4
);
I then inserted a bit more than 19 million rows in each table (exactly the same number of rows in each).
The end result is that the physical size on disk used by table tmp_A is exactly the same as table tmp_B (as revealed by the pg_relation_size function) ! Given that a "char" field is supposed to be 1 byte in size and a int4 4 bytes, shouldn't the tmp_A use a smaller disk space ? Or is it that any value, whatever the type, requires at least 4 bytes to be stored ?
Thanks,
Paul
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: