From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Darren King <darrenk(at)insightdist(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, sthomas(at)cise(dot)ufl(dot)edu |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] database size |
Date: | 1998-01-07 00:32:39 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.3.96.980106203122.254f-100000@thelab.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Darren King wrote:
> 48 bytes + each row header (on my aix box..._your_ mileage may vary)
> 8 bytes + two int fields @ 4 bytes each
> 4 bytes + pointer on page to tuple
> -------- =
> 60 bytes per tuple
>
> 8192 / 60 give 136 tuples per page.
>
> 300000 / 136 ... round up ... need 2206 pages which gives us ...
>
> 2206 * 8192 = 18,071,532
>
> So 19 MB is about right. And this is the best to be done, unless
> you can make do with int2s which would optimally shrink the table
> size to 16,834,560 bytes. Any nulls in there might add a few bytes
> per offending row too, but other than that, this should be considered
> normal postgresql behavior.
Bruce...this would be *great* to have in the FAQ!! What we do need is
a section of the User Manual dealing with computing resources required for
a table, similar to this :)
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Keith Parks | 1998-01-07 00:35:20 | VACUUM error on CVS build 07-JAN-98 |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1998-01-07 00:18:19 | Re: [HACKERS] database size |