Thank you both for explaining this!
Tom, your statement sounds like a good solution: " In principle we could
squeeze those out and store them only once per array, but we don't."
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 8:44 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 4:40 PM E
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 4:40 PM Erik Sjoblom wrote:
>> I hear what you are saying Tom and what I have read says that it would
>> take 24 + 12 x N bytes for the array.
> Whatever you are reading, or your interpretation of it, is flawed.
I wonder whether Erik is conf
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 4:42 PM David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 4:40 PM Erik Sjoblom wrote:
>
>> I hear what you are saying Tom and what I have read says that it would
>> take 24 + 12 x N bytes for the array.
>>
>
> Whatever you are reading, or you
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 4:40 PM Erik Sjoblom wrote:
> I hear what you are saying Tom and what I have read says that it would
> take 24 + 12 x N bytes for the array.
>
Whatever you are reading, or your interpretation of it, is flawed.
David J.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 3:46 PM Erik Sjoblom wrote:
>
> Yes, I did expect that the first element should take 24+12 bytes and let's
> round that to 50 bytes.
>
Assuming the 24 is coming from the array overhead you are expecting that
storing a custom composite typed value takes zero overhead. Tha
I hear what you are saying Tom and what I have read says that it would take
24 + 12 x N bytes for the array. This isn't the case when I start adding
elements to the table. Here are some samples adding 10,000 rows with
difference elements in the composite array:
Row countArray elementsMain table si
Erik Sjoblom writes:
> I don't see why it's using 50 bytes per element. There should be just one
> 24 byte header for the array, not one per element
[ shrug... ] I just told you that's not so.
regards, tom lane
Thanks Tom for your response!
Yes, I did expect that the first element should take 24+12 bytes and let's
round that to 50 bytes.
If I store another element, I would expect another 12. (or 16 depending on
padding) and take say ~65 bytes. I'm seeing close to 100 bytes.
If I have 3 elements, it's usi
Erik Sjoblom writes:
> I’m observing a storage behavior with arrays in a table that differs from
> my expectations, and I’d appreciate your insights. I was to store key value
> pairs in a very dense data model. I don't haver the requirement of search
> so that's why I was thinking an array of a co
