Josh Harrison escribió: > > On 11/19/07, Josh Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I have 2 tables with 2 cols each( 1 numeric(8,0) and 1 varchar(3) ). > > > In table1 both the cols are filled and in table2 the varchar colm is null
> There were a couple of things we noted. > 1. Tablesize twice as much than oracle-- Im not sure if postgres null > columns has any overhead since we have lots of null columns in our > tables.Does postgresql has lots of overhead for null columns? No, NULLs are stored as a bitmap for each tuple and they are quite efficient. Probably the reason for the difference is the numeric field which Oracle may be optimizing as a plain integer. Did you try declaring the column as INTEGER in Postgres? Please do not top-post. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/5ZYLFMCVHXC "Everything that I think about is more fascinating than the crap in your head." (Dogbert's interpretation of blogger philosophy) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
