| From: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Ian Turner <vectro(at)pipeline(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Martin Christensen <knightsofspamalot-factotum(at)mail1(dot)stofanet(dot)dk>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [Solved] SQL Server to PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2000-09-03 09:03:31 |
| Message-ID: | 200009030903.EAA21252@jupiter.jw.home |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Now that you mention it, though, doesn't TOAST break heapam's assumption
> that char(n) is fixed length? Seems like we'd better either remove that
> assumption or mark char(n) nontoastable. Any opinions which is better?
Is the saved overhead from assuming char(n) is fixed really
that big that it's worth NOT to gain the TOAST advantages?
After the GB benchmarks we know that we have some spare
performance to waste for such things :-)
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-09-03 14:02:51 | Re: [Solved] SQL Server to PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Jurgen Defurne | 2000-09-03 05:47:22 | Re: Increasing system speed by using -F option |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-09-03 14:02:51 | Re: [Solved] SQL Server to PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-09-03 05:25:42 | Re: Isn't non-TEST_AND_SET code long dead? |