Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: "Stephen R(dot) van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4?
Date: 2009-01-03 22:45:44
Message-ID: 200901040045.45110.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Friday 02 January 2009 22:23:13 Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
> Three things:
> a. Shouldn't it in theory be possible to have a decompression algorithm
> which is IO-bound because it decompresses faster than the disk can
> supply the data? (On common current hardware).
> b. Has the current algorithm been carefully benchmarked and/or optimised
> and/or chosen to fit the IO-bound target as close as possible?
> c. Are there any well-known pitfalls/objections which would prevent me from
> changing the algorithm to something more efficient (read: IO-bound)?

copyright licenses and patents

Which doesn't mean changing anything is impossible, but it is tricky in those
nontechnical ways.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2009-01-03 22:47:21 Re: [SPAM] Re: posix_fadvise v22
Previous Message Joe Conway 2009-01-03 22:31:31 Re: dblink vs SQL/MED