Re: [HACKERS] compression in LO and other fields

Sorry,
I sent a mail by mistake.
Ignore my previous mail.

inoue wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > >> LO is a dead end. What we really want to do is eliminate tuple-size
> > >> restrictions and then have large ordinary fields (probably of type
> > >> bytea) in regular tuples. I'd suggest working on compression in that
> > >> context, say as a new data type called "bytez" or something like that.
> >
> > > It sounds ideal but I remember that Vadim said inserting a 2GB record
> > > is not good idea since it will be written into the log too. If it's a
> > > necessary limitation from the point of view of WAL, we have to accept
> > > it, I think.
> >
> > LO won't make that any better: the data still goes into a table.
> > You'd have 2GB worth of WAL entries either way.
> >
> > The only thing LO would do for you is divide the data into block-sized
> > tuples, so there would be a bunch of little WAL entries instead of one
> > big one. But that'd probably be easy to duplicate too. If we implement
> > big tuples by chaining together disk-block-sized segments, which seems
> > like the most likely approach, couldn't WAL log each segment as a
> > separate log entry? If so, there's almost no difference between LO and
> > inline field for logging purposes.
> >
>
> I don't know LO well.
> But seems LO allows partial update.
> Big tuples
> If so,isn't it a significant difference ?
>
> Regards.
>
> Hiroshi Inoue
> Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp