> > I agree that these values need a second look. I think a
> > TOAST_TUPLE_THRESHOLD well smaller than the current value would
> > easily pay its way. With a little caution to avoid wasting too much
> > effort on the last few bytes I suspect even as low as
> 400-500 bytes is probably worthwhile.
But a seq scan (or non cached access) would suddenly mutate to multiple
random accesses, so this is not a win-win situation.
Btw: Do we consider the existance of toasted columns in the seq-scan
cost estimation ?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2007-03-28 16:37:03|
|Subject: Re: Patch queue concern|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2007-03-28 16:13:03|
|Subject: ECPG regression tests expected files|