Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> ... 3b sounds good until you
>> reflect that a genuinely variable chunk size would preclude random
>> access to sub-ranges of a toast value.
> Hm, Heikki had me convinced it wouldn't but now that I try to explain it I
> can't get it to work. I think the idea is you start a scan at the desired
> offset and scan until you reach a chunk which overruns the end of the desired
> piece. However you really need to start scanning at the last chunk *prior* to
> the desired offset.
Yeah, that was my conclusion too.
> I think you can actually do this with btrees but I don't know if our apis
> support it. If you scan to find the first chunk > the desired offset and then
> scan backwards one tuple you should be looking at the chunk in which the
> desired offset lies.
Well, that might work but it would typically cost you an extra fetch.
Do we really have a use case for variable chunk size that is worth the
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dann Corbit||Date: 2008-10-31 00:17:23|
|Subject: Strange query behavior where clause produces odd behavior on '>' query|
|Previous:||From: Gregory Stark||Date: 2008-10-30 23:33:27|
|Subject: Re: PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION 5 - time for change|