| From: | Denis Perchine <dyp(at)perchine(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chris Bitmead <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Patch for better large objects support |
| Date: | 2000-06-13 08:51:08 |
| Message-ID: | 00061315544706.00525@dyp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
> > > Will anybody want to use this when TOAST comes to be?
> >
> > 1. There's no any TOAST at the moment.
>
> I wasn't implying the patch is bad. Only wondering out load if toast
> will be a super-set of large objects.
Not exactly.
> > 2. For really large objects TOAST will be really inefficient for quite small < 64K other
> > way around.
>
> Why will toast be inefficient for really large objects?
Because data is stored in relations, and there's extra overhead for managing them.
Just look on Jan's mail in [HACKERS] for better description of the difference.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Denis Perchine
----------------------------------
E-Mail: dyp(at)perchine(dot)com
HomePage: http://www.perchine.com/dyp/
FidoNet: 2:5000/120.5
----------------------------------
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-06-13 09:05:53 | Big 7.1 open items |
| Previous Message | Chris Bitmead | 2000-06-13 08:45:27 | Re: Patch for better large objects support |