| Subject | Re: [firebird-support] split or not split a table with long rows ? |
|---|---|
| Author | Ann Harrison |
| Post date | 2012-03-21T19:43:31Z |
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:46 PM, nathanelrick <nathanelrick@...> wrote:
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,
Ann
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>Before you start to pare down the row width, store a few thousand rows into
> 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)
>
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,
Ann
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]