Re: TOASTing smaller things

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: TOASTing smaller things
Date: 2007-03-21 18:05:31
Message-ID: 12692.1174500331@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> writes:
> #define TOAST_DENOMINATOR 17
> /* Use this as the divisor; current default behaviour falls from TOAST_DENOMINATOR = 4 */

> #define TOAST_TUPLE_THRESHOLD^I\
> ^IMAXALIGN_DOWN((BLCKSZ - \
> ^I^I^I^I MAXALIGN(sizeof(PageHeaderData) + 3 * sizeof(ItemIdData))) \
> ^I^I^I^I / TOAST_DENOMINATOR)

Given that you are quoting code that was demonstrably broken since the
original coding of TOAST up till a month or two back, "it passes
regression" is not adequate proof of "it's right". In fact I think
it's not right; you have not got the roundoff condition straight.

> 4. A different mechanism would be to add a fifth storage column
> strategy (the present four are PLAIN, EXTENDED, EXTERNAL, MAIN), let's
> say, TOAST.

Anything along this line would require invoking the toaster on every
single tuple, since we'd always have to crawl through all the columns
to see if toasting was supposed to happen. No thanks.

> Which of these sounds preferable?

It's a bit late in the cycle to be proposing any of these for 8.3.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2007-03-21 18:06:44 Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design
Previous Message Florian G. Pflug 2007-03-21 18:01:12 Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design