"Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> writes:
> What seems to be hurting the most is the 1MB upper limit.  What is the
> rationale behind that limit?

The argument was that compressing/decompressing such large chunks would
require a lot of CPU effort; also it would defeat attempts to fetch
subsections of a large string.  In the past we've required people to
explicitly "ALTER TABLE SET STORAGE external" if they wanted to make
use of the substring-fetch optimization, but it was argued that this
would make that more likely to work automatically.

I'm not entirely convinced by Alex' analysis anyway; the only way
those 39 large values explain the size difference is if they are
*tremendously* compressible, like almost all zeroes.  The toast
compressor isn't so bright that it's likely to get 10X compression
on typical data.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4? at 2009-01-02 14:57:46 from Stephen R. van den Berg

Responses

• Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4? at 2009-01-02 17:44:38 from Robert Haas
• Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4? at 2009-01-02 18:56:47 from Alex Hunsaker

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2009-01-02 17:23:57
	Subject: Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolation levels
Previous:	From: Kevin Grittner	Date: 2009-01-02 15:38:52
	Subject: Re: Documenting serializable vs snapshot isolationlevels