Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> The lack of any space saving for lower % values is strange and
> somewhat worrying. There should be a 36? byte saving for 300 null
> columns in an 800 column table - how does that not show up at all?
You could only fit about 4 such rows in an 8K page (assuming the columns
are all int4s). Unless the savings is enough to allow 5 rows to fit in
a page, the effective savings will be zilch.
This may well mean that the whole thing is a waste of time in most
scenarios --- the more likely it is to save anything, the more likely
that the savings will be lost anyway due to page alignment
considerations, because wider rows inherently pack less efficiently.
regards, tom lane