Re: TOAST usage setting

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 08:49:11
Message-ID: 87hcptidiw.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"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.

--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Grant Finnemore 2007-05-31 08:59:14 Backend crash during explain
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD 2007-05-31 08:32:18 Re: Ye olde drop-the-database-you-just-left problem