Re: [INTERFACES] large objects

On 27 Jul 1998, Aleksey Demakov wrote:

> Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
>
> >
> > The object is stored using a table/index pair, and takes up more disk
> > space than a single object.
> >
>
> How much more? And what about performance?
>
> In fact I don't need very large objects. 64k or even 32k will suffice.
> Could such not-so-large objects be implemented more effectively?

Anything larger than the page size (default is 8k, but can be larger) are
a large object. The internals do alow for multiple storage managers, so it
is possible to use other methods than the current "Inversion" scheme.

We did have a posibility of a different manager, but I've heared nothing
of it for some time now (pre 6.3 if memory serves)/

> It would be very nice to have a new postgres type for this. The 8k limit
> is very restrictive. What do postgres gurus think?

Part of the solution for the BLOB orphaning problem that JDBC & ODBC have
requires a unique type 'lo' (required to differenciate between a generic
oid, and a large object while vacuuming).

However, for most cases, the existing lo interface is the only realistic
way of handling them.

--
Peter T Mount peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk or petermount(at)earthling(dot)net
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
************ Someday I may rebuild this signature completely ;-) ************
Work Homepage: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk Work EMail: peter(at)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk