| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Julien Tachoires <julmon(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alex Shulgin <ash(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: patch : Allow toast tables to be moved to a different tablespace |
| Date: | 2015-07-07 12:07:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20150707120744.GM30359@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-07-03 18:03:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I have just looked through this thread, and TBH I think we should reject
> this patch altogether --- not RWF, but "no we don't want this". The
> use-case remains hypothetical: no performance numbers showing a real-world
> benefit have been exhibited AFAICS.
It's not that hard to imagine a performance benefit though? If the
toasted column is accessed infrequently/just after filtering on other
columns (not uncommon) it could very well be beneficial to put the main
table on fast storage (SSD) and the toast table on slow storage
(spinning rust).
I've seen humoungous toast tables that are barely ever read for tables
that are constantly a couple times in the field.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-07-07 12:13:05 | Re: bugfix: incomplete implementation of errhidecontext |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-07-07 12:07:02 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |