| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TOAST usage setting |
| Date: | 2007-05-30 16:43:58 |
| Message-ID: | 200705301643.l4UGhwX10751@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > Whereas if you set toast_tuples_per_page to 8k then the only option for
> > Postgres will be to put each datum in its own page and waste 1-3k on every
> > page.
>
> No, because actually the code is designed to make the toast chunk size
> just enough less than 8K that the tuples fit.
>
> The shorter-than-normal tuples carrying the last chunk of any particular
> datum are going to result in wasted space to the extent that we can't
> pack them together on a page, but that's true now. Right now, if you
> have a large toasted datum, it mostly will consist of just-under-2K
> tuples that are sized so that there's no noticeable wasted space on a
> page with 4 of them. There isn't any advantage to that compared to one
> just-under-8K tuple AFAICS, and it takes 4 times as much work to insert
> or retrieve 'em.
Uh, am I supposed to be running more TOAST tests? Would someone explain
what they want tested?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2007-05-30 16:49:34 | Re: 'Waiting on lock' |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-05-30 16:33:45 | Re: 'Waiting on lock' |