pg.ddx.io pgsql-sql@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedPhysical column size
7+ messages / 6 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Physical column size
@ 2006-01-26 10:06 Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
2006-01-26 11:22 ` Re: Physical column size Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@sime.com>
2006-03-03 10:03 ` Physical column size Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Paul Mackay @ 2006-01-26 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
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 inerted 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
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Physical column size
2006-01-26 10:06 Physical column size Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
@ 2006-01-26 11:22 ` Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@sime.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Mario Weilguni @ 2006-01-26 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; +Cc: Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
Am Donnerstag, 26. Januar 2006 11:06 schrieb Paul Mackay:
> 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 inerted 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 ?
I think this is caused by alignment.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Physical column size
2006-01-26 10:06 Physical column size Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
@ 2006-03-03 10:03 ` Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
2006-03-03 10:23 ` Re: Physical column size Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2006-03-03 10:23 ` Re: Physical column size Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
2006-03-03 10:27 ` Re: Physical column size Ragnar <gnari@hive.is>
1 sibling, 3 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Paul Mackay @ 2006-03-03 10:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
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,
Paul
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Physical column size
2006-01-26 10:06 Physical column size Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
2006-03-03 10:03 ` Physical column size Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
@ 2006-03-03 10:23 ` Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2006-03-03 14:53 ` Re: Physical column size Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Peter Eisentraut @ 2006-03-03 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org; +Cc: Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
Am Freitag, 3. März 2006 11:03 schrieb Paul Mackay:
> 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
> );
> 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) !
An int4 field is required to be aligned at a 4-byte boundary internally, so
there are 3 bytes wasted between tmp_A.c and tmp_A.i. If you switch the
order of the fields you should see space savings. (Note, however, that the
per-row overhead is about 32 bytes, so you'll probably only save about 10%
overall, rather than the 37.5% that one might expect.)
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Physical column size
2006-01-26 10:06 Physical column size Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
2006-03-03 10:03 ` Physical column size Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
2006-03-03 10:23 ` Re: Physical column size Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
@ 2006-03-03 14:53 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2006-03-03 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>; +Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org, "Paul Mackay" <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> An int4 field is required to be aligned at a 4-byte boundary internally, so
> there are 3 bytes wasted between tmp_A.c and tmp_A.i. If you switch the
> order of the fields you should see space savings.
Probably not, because the row-as-a-whole has alignment requirements too.
In this example you'll just move the pad bytes from one place to
another.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Physical column size
2006-01-26 10:06 Physical column size Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
2006-03-03 10:03 ` Physical column size Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
@ 2006-03-03 10:23 ` Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Martijn van Oosterhout @ 2006-03-03 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 11:03:24AM +0100, Paul Mackay wrote:
> 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 ?
Alignment. An int4 value must start on a multiple of 4 offset, so you
get three bytes of padding. If you put the int4, then the char it
should work better. Although whole rows have alignment requirements
too...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 188B) download
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: Physical column size
2006-01-26 10:06 Physical column size Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
2006-03-03 10:03 ` Physical column size Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
@ 2006-03-03 10:27 ` Ragnar <gnari@hive.is>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ragnar @ 2006-03-03 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
On fös, 2006-03-03 at 11:03 +0100, Paul Mackay wrote:
> 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 ?
the int4 needs to be aligned at 4 bytes boundaries,
making wasted space after the char.
this would probably be the same size:
CREATE TABLE tmp_C (
c "char",
cc "char",
i int4
);
and this would be smaller:
CREATE TABLE tmp_D (
c "char",
cc "char",
ccc "char",
);
P.S.: I did not actually check to
see if the "char" type needs to be aligned,
by I assumed not.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-03-03 14:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-01-26 10:06 Physical column size Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
2006-01-26 11:22 ` Mario Weilguni <mweilguni@sime.com>
2006-03-03 10:03 ` Paul Mackay <mackaypaul@gmail.com>
2006-03-03 10:23 ` Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
2006-03-03 14:53 ` Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2006-03-03 10:23 ` Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
2006-03-03 10:27 ` Ragnar <gnari@hive.is>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox