Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6

From: Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
To: Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Date: 1999-06-04 03:58:22
Message-ID: 3.0.1.32.19990603205822.00dd1ed0@mail.pacifier.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At 10:56 AM 6/4/99 +0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote:

>Note: I told about "multi-representation" feature, not just about
>LO/CLOBS/BLOBS support. "Multi-representation" means that server
>stores tuple fields sometime inside the main relation file,
>sometime outside of it, but this is hidden from user and so
>people "just put their data into tuples". I think that putting
>big fields outside of main relation file is very good thing.

Yes, it is, though "big" is relative (as computers grow). The
key is to hide the details of where things are stored from the
user, so the user doesn't really have to know what is "big"
(today) vs. "small" (tomorrow or today, for that matter). I
don't think it's so much the efficiency hit of having big
items stored outside the main relation file, as the need for
the user to know what's "big" and what's "small", that's the
problem.

I mean, my background is as a compiler writer for high-level
languages...call me a 1970's idealist if you will, but I
really think such things should be hidden from the user.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Don Baccus 1999-06-04 04:05:19 Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-06-04 03:51:47 Re: [HACKERS] Open 6.5 items