From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <teramoto(dot)junji(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Subject: | Re: Proposed adjustments in MaxTupleSizeandtoastthresholds |
Date: | 2007-02-06 10:14:45 |
Message-ID: | 1170756885.3645.469.camel@silverbirch.site |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 12:10 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > > Actually, given what we've just learned --- namely that choosing these
> > > values at random is a bad idea --- I'd want to see a whole lot of
> > > positive evidence before adding such a configuration knob.
> >
> > 3. assemble performance evidence
> >
> > Step 3 is always there for performance work, so even if you don't
> > mention it, I'll assume everybody wants to see that as soon as possible
> > before we progress.
>
> There was a performance evidence using TOAST in order to partial updates.
> It added a flag of force toasting. The toast threshold suggested now is
> more flexible than it, but I think it is one of the evidences.
>
> Vertical Partitioning with TOAST
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-12/msg00013.php
>
Apologies to Junji-san. I'd thought my idea was original, but it seems
we think along similar lines.
That is the kind of performance gain I see possible.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-02-06 10:28:45 | Re: Dead code in _bt_split? |
Previous Message | Marko Kreen | 2007-02-06 10:14:37 | Re: Pl/pgsql functions causing crashes in 8.2.2 |