Subject Re: [firebird-support] split or not split a table with long rows ?
Author Ann Harrison
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:46 PM, nathanelrick <nathanelrick@...> wrote:

> Table1
> 74 fields
> Total size of one row: 4302 bytes
> Table2
> 65 fields
> Total size one row: 4786 bytes
> theses tables are link by a 1=1 relation. around 10 000 000 rows in each
> table
> Is their any advantage to keep the data in 2 tables instead of one ?
> i can eventually reduce the size on the row to make that it's can fit
> inside a page of the database (8192)

Before you start to pare down the row width, store a few thousand rows into
a combined table and
run gstat. It will tell you how big the stored rows actually are - the run
length compression may help
you enough so that most rows fit on a page.

When you're doing the consolidation, remember to include the record header
(~14 bytes, +6 for a
fragmented record), page header, and page index (4 byte per record).

Why not use a 16K page?

Good luck,


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]