List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Bennett Haselton Date:June 15 2011 9:17am
Subject:Re: optimization strategies based on file-level storage
View as plain text  
At 11:45 AM 6/14/2011, Johan De Meersman wrote:


>----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bennett Haselton" <bennett@stripped>
> >
> > modifications.  (For example, the question I asked earlier about
> > whether you can declare extra space at the end of each row that is
> > "reserved for future columns".)
>
>That question I can answer: you can't "reserve" space, but if you 
>know what kind of rows you'll want to add later you can pre-add them 
>(and incur the accompanying storage cost), and simply rename them 
>appropriately later.

Thanks.  It would be more flexible if I could declare, say, 50 bytes, 
and decide later if I wanted to use them for a datetime, a char(n), 
or an int, but this is still helpful :)

Do you happen to know the answer to my other problem -- if I have 
TEXT and BLOB columns but all my other columns are fixed-length, can 
I still get the benefit of faster lookups resulting from fixed-length 
rows, if each row just contains a fixed-length reference to the 
actual TEXT or BLOB data which is stored elsewhere?

         -Bennett 

Thread
optimization strategies based on file-level storageBennett Haselton14 Jun
RE: optimization strategies based on file-level storageBennett Haselton14 Jun
  • Re: optimization strategies based on file-level storageJohan De Meersman14 Jun
    • Re: optimization strategies based on file-level storageBennett Haselton15 Jun
      • Re: optimization strategies based on file-level storageJohan De Meersman17 Jun
        • Re: optimization strategies based on file-level storageBennett Haselton17 Jun
          • RE: optimization strategies based on file-level storageJerry Schwartz17 Jun
            • RE: optimization strategies based on file-level storageWm Mussatto17 Jun