| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| Date: | 2005-01-13 03:19:18 |
| Message-ID: | 873bx6yq15.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-announce pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org> writes:
> But of course, we all love toast. Everyone needs to make those wide
> tables once in a while, and toast does a great job of taking those
> worries away in an efficient way. I am just saying that hopefully we
> don't have to seqscan a table with wide tuples very often :)
I thought toast only handled having individual large columns. So if I have a
2kb text column it'll pull that out of the table for me. But if I have 20
columns each of which have 100 bytes will it still help me? Will it kick in if
I define a single column which stores a record type with 20 columns each of
which have a 100 byte string?
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-13 03:50:57 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2005-01-13 02:45:09 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-13 03:50:57 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2005-01-13 02:45:09 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-13 03:50:57 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2005-01-13 02:45:09 | Re: Much Ado About COUNT(*) |