Re: [HACKERS] Optimization of the alignment padding

2005-11-15 Thread Bruce Momjian
There is a long TODO about it: * Merge xmin/xmax/cmin/cmax back into three header fields Before subtransactions, there used to be only three fields needed to store these four values. This was possible because only the current transaction looks at the

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization of the alignment padding

2005-11-09 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There was a discussion during the 8.1 devel cycle about shortening the > > HeapTupleHeader struct. > > It would, in fact, largely eliminate the point of this patch, since the > standard header size would go back

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization of the alignment padding

2005-11-09 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There was a discussion during the 8.1 devel cycle about shortening the > HeapTupleHeader struct. It involved some games with the command Ids. > Maybe you'll want to look at that, as it could have an impact on what > you're trying to do here. It would,

Re: [HACKERS] Optimization of the alignment padding

2005-11-09 Thread Alvaro Herrera
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: > After the subtransaction had been added, > the size of HeapTupleHeader became 27 bytes. > This consumes extra bytes per tuple for the alignment padding, > especially on systems where MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF is 8. There was a discussion during the 8.1 devel cycle about shortening

[HACKERS] Optimization of the alignment padding

2005-11-09 Thread ITAGAKI Takahiro
Hi Hackers, After the subtransaction had been added, the size of HeapTupleHeader became 27 bytes. This consumes extra bytes per tuple for the alignment padding, especially on systems where MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF is 8. This patch optimizes the location of the first field, and reduces the padding. I expec