On 28/09/18 21:51, Vladimir Ryabtsev wrote: > > That means, if your block size was bigger, then you would have bigger space allocated for one single record. > But if I INSERT second, third ... hundredth record in the table, the size remains 8K. > So my point is that if one decides to increase block size, increasing storage space is not so significant, because it does not set minimum storage unit for a row. > ah, yes, correct. Now we are on the same page. Good luck with the rest of things you are going to try out, and let us know your findings. regards, fabio pardi > vlad
