Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: "Stephen R(dot) van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4?
Date: 2009-01-03 22:45:44
Message-ID: 200901040045.45110.peter_e@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Friday 02 January 2009 22:23:13 Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
> Three things:
> a. Shouldn't it in theory be possible to have a decompression algorithm
>    which is IO-bound because it decompresses faster than the disk can
>    supply the data?  (On common current hardware).
> b. Has the current algorithm been carefully benchmarked and/or optimised
>    and/or chosen to fit the IO-bound target as close as possible?
> c. Are there any well-known pitfalls/objections which would prevent me from
>    changing the algorithm to something more efficient (read: IO-bound)?

copyright licenses and patents

Which doesn't mean changing anything is impossible, but it is tricky in those 
nontechnical ways.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2009-01-03 22:47:21
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: posix_fadvise v22
Previous:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2009-01-03 22:31:31
Subject: Re: dblink vs SQL/MED

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group