| From: | "Stephen R(dot) van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, James Mansion <james(at)mansionfamily(dot)plus(dot)com>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4? |
| Date: | 2009-01-06 19:57:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20090106195741.GB28618@cuci.nl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>(1) Compress everything within reason by default, causing slower retrieval, do
>not offer substr optimization. [<= 8.3]
>(2) Compress only up to 1 MB, causing faster retrieval, supporting substr
>optimization. [8.4devel]
>I am personally completely puzzled by option number 2. Is there even a single
>use case for that?
I can't imagine one, and (in this thread at least) noone has demonstrated
such; Tom hinted at one, but he didn't elaborate.
--
Sincerely,
Stephen R. van den Berg.
"Very funny, Mr. Scott. Now beam down my clothes!"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2009-01-06 20:00:39 | Re: dblink vs SQL/MED - security and implementation details |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-06 19:53:08 | Re: Warning about the 8.4 release |