| From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Index toasting (was: Re: [HACKERS] Error "vacuum pg_proc") |
| Date: | 2000-01-04 00:51:42 |
| Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.20000103165142.00edd988@mail.pacifier.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 07:25 PM 1/3/00 +0100, Jan Wieck wrote:
> I think it's best to delay index toasting until we have some
> experience with normal, main tuple attribute toasting. It'd be
> nice if the solution had covered huge values to be indexed
> automatically (what it doesn't any more). But I think most
> people can live with a database, that cannot index huge
> values, but is capable to store and retrieve them for now.
>From my personal POV, I would certainly agree with this. The stuff
I'm working on is probably pretty typical, using an integer key to
identify rows which contain large chunks of text, photographs, etc.
I'm perfectly happy not being able to index the big chunks, and
suspect a large percentage of users would feel the same.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philippe Marchesseault | 2000-01-04 01:22:55 | Re: [HACKERS] replicator |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-01-04 00:21:01 | Re: [HACKERS] Source code format vote |