Hi , We are currently contemplating switching from MySQL to PostgreSQL, the main attraction being the use of the TimescaleDB extension. Having done much of the ground investigation there is one area of significant concern - the storage requirement of PostgreSQL. Put simply, comparing like for like for a set of tables, PostgreSQL consumes far more storage space than MySQL: - MySQL (5.6): 156 MB - PostgreSQL (11.2): 246 MB - PostgreSQL + TimescaleDB (partitioned/chunked data): 324 MB I've also submitted this in stackoverflow: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55655272/how-to-reduce-postgresql-databa se-size. I can rearrange the table/column-alignment to save 6 bytes per row of the main table, with a saving of a few mega-bytes. Not enough to make any real difference. Does anyone know: - Why PostgreSQL is so storage inefficient in comparison? - What existing methods can be used to reduce the storage consumption (I've already tried realignment and vacuum full)? - Are there any plans to address this storage consumption inefficiency (in comparison to MySQL) problem? Many thanks, sps-ray --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
