| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TOAST usage setting |
| Date: | 2007-05-31 09:01:14 |
| Message-ID: | 87d50hicyt.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>
>> shared_buffers again was 32MB so all the data was in memory.
>
> The case where all the data is in memory is simply not interesting. The cost
> of TOAST is the random access seeks it causes. You seem to be intentionally
> avoiding testing the precise thing we're interested in.
Also, something's not right with these results. 100,000 tuples --even if all
they contain is a toast pointer-- won't fit on a single page. And the toast
tables should vary in size depending on how many toast chunks are created.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-05-31 09:11:30 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make large sequential scans and VACUUMs work in a limited-size |
| Previous Message | Grant Finnemore | 2007-05-31 08:59:14 | Backend crash during explain |