| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: [HACKERS] Volunteer: Large Tuples / Tuple chaining |
| Date: | 1999-12-14 10:50:23 |
| Message-ID: | 385620EF.2AF3FCB@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
> > Hmm,we have discussed about LONG.
> > Change by LONG is transparent to users and would resolve
> > the big tuple problem mostly.
> > I'm suspicious that tuple chaining is worth the work now.
>
> All commercial db's I know allow at least 32kb tuples,
> they all do it with chaining, because they usually have a
> smaller (often configurable) pagesize.
> Imho it is definitely worth it.
>
There would be few cases > 8K tuples after LONG was implemented.
And tuple chaining is much difficult to implement than LONG.
If it is badly designed it would be a disaster.
Is it still worth doing now ?
At least the design must be verified sufficiently before going.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 1999-12-14 11:12:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Create Group |
| Previous Message | Vince Vielhaber | 1999-12-14 10:45:17 | Re: [HACKERS] 6.6 release |