From: | "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: TOAST usage setting |
Date: | 2007-06-05 09:41:36 |
Message-ID: | E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA579021B3113@m0143.s-mxs.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > The big question is do we want to drop the target tuple size down
to
> > 512, and increase the chunk size to 8k for 8.3? Dropping the tuple
> > size down to 512 is going to give us some smaller TOAST values to
fill
> > in free space created by the 8k chuck size, assuming you have both
> > types of values in the table. Do we want to increase the access
time
> > of long TOAST by 6% if it means having more wasted space for lots of
> > 4.1k values?
>
> If we do that people could see their disk space usage increase by up
to
> 16x: currently 513 bytes fits in heap and takes (roughly) 513
> bytes;
No, you misunderstood. Bruce was suggesting changing the target to 512.
That means if a row is wider than ~2k, toaster will try to toast until
the base row is
~512 bytes. I would not do that part for 8.3.
> if we make that change it would then get toasted and
> take 8K. I don't think we want to do that. Disk space aside,
> it's almost certain to seriously hurt performance as soon as
> you don't fit entirely in memory.
No, allowing one toast chunk to fill a page does not mean that every
chunk uses a whole page.
Andreas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Huxton | 2007-06-05 09:45:54 | Re: libpq and Binary Data Formats |
Previous Message | NikhilS | 2007-06-05 09:20:23 | Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING INDEXES support |