| From: | Vadim Mikheev <vadim(at)krs(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Arbitrary tuple size |
| Date: | 1999-07-09 06:05:16 |
| Message-ID: | 3785911C.328B0998@krs.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > If we get wide tuples, we could just throw all large objects into one
> > > table, and have an on it. We can then vacuum it to compact space, etc.
> >
> > Storing 2Gb LO in table is not good thing.
> >
> > Vadim
> >
>
> Ah, but we have segemented tables now. It will auto-split at 1 gig.
Well, now consider update of 2Gb row!
I worry not due to non-overwriting but about writing
2Gb log record to WAL - we'll not be able to do it, sure.
Isn't it why Informix restrict tuple len to 32k only?
And the same is what Oracle does.
Both of them have ability to use > 1 page for single row,
but they have this restriction anyway.
I don't like _arbitrary_ tuple size.
I vote for some limit. 32K or 64K, at max.
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 1999-07-09 07:14:55 | Re: [HACKERS] Arbitrary tuple size |
| Previous Message | Tom Ivar Helbekkmo | 1999-07-09 05:45:36 | Re: [HACKERS] Fwd: Joins and links |