Message-ID: <553921B1.7080204@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 18:45:37 +0200
From: Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, hlinnaka@iki.fi,
 Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
CC: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>,
 Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Reducing tuple overhead
References: <20150423162429.GG3055@alap3.anarazel.de>
In-Reply-To: <20150423162429.GG3055@alap3.anarazel.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

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.

-- 
  Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers