On Nov 20, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Josh Harrison wrote:
I ran vacuum full on this table already. I haven't re-indexed it. But
this will not affect the table size...right...since indexes are stored
separately?
Yes, but your indexes are probably bloated at this point, so to reduce
the space they
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 13:04 -0500, Josh Harrison wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2007 11:13 AM, Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 07:22 -0500, Josh Harrison wrote:
> >
> > > There were a couple of things we noted.
> > > 1. Tablesize twice as much than oracle-- Im not sure if p
On Nov 20, 2007 11:13 AM, Brad Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 07:22 -0500, Josh Harrison wrote:
>
> > 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 n
On 11/20/07, Josh Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are working on migrating our database from oracle to postgres.
> Postgres tablesize is twice than oracle tablesize for all my
> tables.And so the query also takes twice as much time than oracle. So
> we were checking to see what makes post
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 07:22 -0500, Josh Harrison wrote:
> 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 col
On Nov 20, 2007 8:10 AM, Filip Rembiałkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2007/11/20, Josh Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > We are working on migrating our database from oracle to postgres.
> > Postgres tablesize is twice than oracle tablesize for all my
> > tables.
> Interesting. Which postgresql
2007/11/20, Josh Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> We are working on migrating our database from oracle to postgres.
> Postgres tablesize is twice than oracle tablesize for all my
> tables.
Interesting. Which postgresql version?
>And so the query also takes twice as much time than oracle.
This is ev
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. Tablesiz
We are working on migrating our database from oracle to postgres.
Postgres tablesize is twice than oracle tablesize for all my
tables.And so the query also takes twice as much time than oracle. So
we were checking to see what makes postgres slower than oracle even
for basic full tablescan queries.
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
>
> So when I checked the tablesize for these two tables (using pg_relation_size)
> table1 - 573
Thanks Filip.
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
So when I checked the tablesize for these two tables (using pg_relation_size)
table1 - 57344 bytes (no null columns)
table2 - 49152 bytes (v
2007/11/19, Josh Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
> I have a few questions about the storage and performance
>
> 1. How do you estimate the table size in postgresql?
> For example if I have a table 'Dummy' with 1 varchar (40) & 1
> numeric(22,0) fields and 1000 rows, what is the tablesize estima
Hi,
I have a few questions about the storage and performance
1. How do you estimate the table size in postgresql?
For example if I have a table 'Dummy' with 1 varchar (40) & 1
numeric(22,0) fields and 1000 rows, what is the tablesize estimate for
this (including the row overhead etc)? How many pag
13 matches
Mail list logo
