From: | Les <nagylzs(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Index on (fixed size) bytea value |
Date: | 2023-06-20 06:13:07 |
Message-ID: | CAKXe9UA9gmFH8AeY6_LLiWDt=Z648c+3Wqb3uY7B455hZEAT_g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
David G. Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> ezt írta (időpont: 2023.
jún. 19., H, 22:30):
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 1:05 PM Les <nagylzs(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> AFAIK PostgreSQL does not allow a row to occupy multiple blocks.
>>
>
> Your plan is going to heavily involve out-of-band storage. Please read up
> on it here:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/storage-toast.html
>
I'm aware of the TOAST, and how it works. I was referring to it ("I think
that it should be as large as possible, without hitting the toast. ") I
have designed a separate "block" table specifically to avoid storing binary
data in the TOAST. So my plan is not going to involve out-of-band storage.
Just to make this very clear: a record in the block table would store a
block, not the whole file. My question is to finding the optimal block size
(without hitting the toast), and finding the optimal hash algorithm for
block de-duplication.
Unless I totally misunderstood how the TOAST works. (?)
Laszlo
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2023-06-20 06:50:58 | Re: Index on (fixed size) bytea value |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2023-06-19 23:25:52 | Re: Merge David and Goliath tables efficiently |