| From: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | stuporg(at)erols(dot)com, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] What I'm working on |
| Date: | 1998-08-24 02:34:19 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.02.9808232331460.295-100000@thelab.hub.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 23 Aug 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yes, I guess you could have both. I just think the normal user is going
> to prefer the span stuff better, but you have a good point. If we had
> one, we could buy time getting the other.
For whomever is implementing the row-span stuff, can something be
added that keeps track of number of rows that are spanned? ie. if most of
the rows are spanning the rows, then I would personally like to know that
so that I can look at dumping and reloading the data with a database set
to a higher blocksize...
There *has* to be some overhead, performance wise, in the database
having to keep track of row-spanning, and being able to reduce that, IMHO,
is what I see being able to change the blocksize as doing...
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stupor Genius | 1998-08-24 03:01:08 | RE: [HACKERS] What I'm working on |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-08-24 02:08:34 | Open 6.4 items |