Re: FW: performance issue with a 2.5gb joinded table - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: FW: performance issue with a 2.5gb joinded table
Date
Msg-id 50E5B990.5010101@vmware.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to FW: performance issue with a 2.5gb joinded table  (Daniel Westermann <Daniel.Westermann@lcsystems.ch>)
Responses Re: FW: performance issue with a 2.5gb joinded table
Re: FW: performance issue with a 2.5gb joinded table
List pgsql-performance
On 03.01.2013 15:30, Daniel Westermann wrote:
> What additionally makes me wonder is, that the same table in oracle is taking much less space than in postgresql:
>
> SQL>  select  sum(bytes) from dba_extents where segment_name = 'TEST1';
> SUM(BYTES)
> ----------
> 1610612736
>
> select pg_relation_size('mgmtt_own.test1');
> pg_relation_size
> ------------------
>         2502082560
> (1 row)
>
> (sysdba@[local]:7777) [bi_dwht]>  \d+ mgmtt_own.test1
>                               Table "mgmtt_own.test1"
>              Column            |     Type      | Modifiers | Storage | Description
> ------------------------------+---------------+-----------+---------+-------------
> slsales_batch                | numeric(8,0)  |           | main    |
> slsales_checksum             | numeric(8,0)  |           | main    |
> slsales_reg_id               | numeric(8,0)  |           | main    |
> slsales_prod_id              | numeric(8,0)  |           | main    |
> slsales_date_id              | numeric(8,0)  |           | main    |
> slsales_pos_id               | numeric(8,0)  |           | main    |
> slsales_amt_sales_gross      | numeric(16,6) |           | main    |
> slsales_amt_sales_discount   | numeric(16,6) |           | main    |
> slsales_units_sales_gross    | numeric(8,0)  |           | main    |
> slsales_amt_returns          | numeric(16,6) |           | main    |
> slsales_amt_returns_discount | numeric(16,6) |           | main    |
> slsales_units_returns        | numeric(8,0)  |           | main    |
> slsales_amt_est_winnings     | numeric(16,6) |           | main    |
> Indexes:
>      "itest1" btree (slsales_date_id) CLUSTER, tablespace "mgmtt_idx"
>      "itest2" btree (slsales_prod_id), tablespace "mgmtt_idx"
> Has OIDs: no
> Tablespace: "mgmtt_dat"

One difference is that numerics are stored more tightly packed on
Oracle. Which is particularly good for Oracle as they don't have other
numeric data types than number. On PostgreSQL, you'll want to use int4
for ID-fields, where possible. An int4 always takes up 4 bytes, while a
numeric holding an integer value in the same range is typically 5-9 bytes.

- Heikki


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Westermann
Date:
Subject: FW: performance issue with a 2.5gb joinded table
Next
From: Daniel Westermann
Date:
Subject: Re: FW: performance issue with a 2.5gb joinded table