| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Karel Zak - Zakkr <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] compression in LO and other fields |
| Date: | 1999-11-12 02:00:08 |
| Message-ID: | 199911120200.LAA19911@srapc451.sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> LO is a dead end. What we really want to do is eliminate tuple-size
> restrictions and then have large ordinary fields (probably of type
> bytea) in regular tuples. I'd suggest working on compression in that
> context, say as a new data type called "bytez" or something like that.
It sounds ideal but I remember that Vadim said inserting a 2GB record
is not good idea since it will be written into the log too. If it's a
necessary limitation from the point of view of WAL, we have to accept
it, I think.
BTW, I still don't have enough time to run the huge sort tests on
6.5.x. Probably I would have chance next week to do that...
---
Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-11-12 03:32:58 | Re: [HACKERS] compression in LO and other fields |
| Previous Message | Frans Van Elsacker | 1999-11-12 00:10:06 | union problem version 6.5.3 |