Re: Single Byte values
От | Manfred Koizar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Single Byte values |
Дата | |
Msg-id | lp8r8vot69rspsmfo1mj217e0071u8pjv1@4ax.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Single Byte values (Jason Hihn <jhihn@paytimepayroll.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Fri, 04 Apr 2003 09:13:54 -0500, Jason Hihn <jhihn@paytimepayroll.com> wrote: >> All char(n) types are stored on 4 byte boundaries, so char(1) costs up >> to 8 bytes. > >Is this true for memory AND disk, or just memory? Both. >> Instead of char(1) you can use the Postgres specific type "char" >> (*with* the quotes) which only needs one byte. > >So I assume use of this is 'safe'? Any degridation on performance? I don't expect performance degradation; this should rather improve performance because with smaller tuples you get more tuples per page and so pages have to be read/written less frequently. AFAICT from my tests, if your system is IO bound, then a reduction of tuple size translates directly to performance improvement, e.g. 5% tuple size reduction results more or less in 5% better throughput; might be less, if your usage pattern is CPU bound; might be more, if you're lucky and your working set jumps from just a bit more than available cache to just a bit less. Servus Manfred
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: