| Subject | Re: Why table of type "key-value" takes so much space on disk? |
|---|---|
| Author | Dmitry Yemanov |
| Post date | 2015-06-09T13:01:33Z |
05.06.2015 08:55, brucedickinson@... wrote:
the gstat -r output and compare the average record size in both cases.
With the former (DETAILS_DATA) approach, the table is very narrow.
Storage overhead (record header size, 13 bytes) is nearly the same as
the data itself (perhaps even more, considering the data compression).
It could explain the wasted space.
Dmitry
>How long are actual strings inside PARAM_VALUE? It's worth looking at
> As you can see DETAILS_DATA takes 5 times more of space. I was
> completely surprised by this result, after all I am not wasting space
> for 50+ columns. Could you explain me this phenomenon?
the gstat -r output and compare the average record size in both cases.
With the former (DETAILS_DATA) approach, the table is very narrow.
Storage overhead (record header size, 13 bytes) is nearly the same as
the data itself (perhaps even more, considering the data compression).
It could explain the wasted space.
Dmitry