Re: [HACKERS] include/config.h FOLLOWUP

From: "Vadim B(dot) Mikheev" <vadim(at)sable(dot)krasnoyarsk(dot)su>
To: abrams(at)philos(dot)umass(dot)edu
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] include/config.h FOLLOWUP
Date: 1998-01-05 04:14:49
Message-ID: 34B05E39.64A9E3FF@sable.krasnoyarsk.su
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Integration wrote:
>
> ps. why not allow for larger tuples in general? Do we take a speed hit?

Using large blocks is bad for performance: by increasing block size
you automatically decrease number of blocks in shared buffer pool -
this is bad for index scans and in multi-user environment!
Just remember that Informix (and others) use 2K blocks.
(Actually, I would like to have smaller blocks, but postgres lives
over file system...)

As for having big tuples - someone said about multi-representation
feature of Illustra (automatically storing of big fields outside
of tuple itself - in blobs, large objects, ...): looks very nice.

Vadim

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message The Hermit Hacker 1998-01-05 04:21:08 Re: [HACKERS] include/config.h FOLLOWUP
Previous Message Vadim B. Mikheev 1998-01-05 03:35:10 Re: Error messages/logging (Was: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] 'pgsql/src/backend/parser gram.y parse_oper.c')