| From: | Scott Cain <cain(at)cshl(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, PgSQL Performance ML <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [SQL] EXTERNAL storage and substring on long strings |
| Date: | 2003-08-14 18:11:07 |
| Message-ID: | 1060884667.1430.6.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance pgsql-sql |
Agreed. When I actually Did It Right (tm), EXTERNAL storage gave
similar (probably better) performance as my shredding method, without
all the hoops to breakup and reassemble the string.
Scott
On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 14:00, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > Doesn't look that unrealistic to me. A plain text based substring
> > function will reassemble the whole beast first before cutting out the
> > wanted part. His manually chunked version will read only those chunks
> > needed.
>
> So does substr(), if applied to EXTERNAL (non-compressed) toasted text.
> See John Gray's improvements a release or two back.
>
> regards, tom lane
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cain, Ph. D. cain(at)cshl(dot)org
GMOD Coordinator (http://www.gmod.org/) 216-392-3087
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2003-08-14 18:55:38 | Re: [SQL] EXTERNAL storage and substring on long strings |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2003-08-14 18:04:58 | Re: Vacuum performance question |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | krystoffff | 2003-08-14 18:14:46 | Re: How to optimize this query ? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-14 18:00:21 | Re: [SQL] EXTERNAL storage and substring on long strings |