David,
> Tradeoffs? As I mentioned. Surely the offset per tuple actually must
> be stored somewhere, and that storage is not free.
What offset do you mean?
Consider an example. Let's define a table as follows:
create table test(
name1 varchar(255),
name2 varchar(255)
);
And add one tuple
in
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 at 04:16, Павлухин Иван wrote:
> It seems that an innodb layout is better at least for reading. So, it
> is still unclear for me why postgresql does not employ similar layout
> if it can give significant benefits.
Tradeoffs? As I mentioned. Surely the offset per tuple actually
Hi David,
Thank you for your response. I understand that postgresql behaves good
for fixed-length NOT NULL columns stored in the beginning of a tuple.
But let's imagine a use case when we just have many NOT NULL
variable-length columns. With current storage format accessing a first
column is faste
On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 19:13, Павлухин Иван wrote:
> I am learning deeply how tuples are organized and column values are
> accessed in different databases. As far as undertood postgres does not
> store all column positions in a tuple (e.g. in header or footer). In
> contrast MySQL InnoDB stores co
Hi PostgreSQL Community,
I am learning deeply how tuples are organized and column values are
accessed in different databases. As far as undertood postgres does not
store all column positions in a tuple (e.g. in header or footer). In
contrast MySQL InnoDB stores column lengths in a record header [1
