Skip site navigation (1)
Skip section navigation (2)
Peripheral Links
Header And Logo
|
Site Navigation
Re: TOAST usage setting
- From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
- To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
- Cc: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
- Subject: Re: TOAST usage setting
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:01:14 +0100
"Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes: > "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes: > >> shared_buffers again was 32MB so all the data was in memory. > > The case where all the data is in memory is simply not interesting. The cost > of TOAST is the random access seeks it causes. You seem to be intentionally > avoiding testing the precise thing we're interested in. Also, something's not right with these results. 100,000 tuples --even if all they contain is a toast pointer-- won't fit on a single page. And the toast tables should vary in size depending on how many toast chunks are created. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
- References:
- Re: TOAST usage setting
- From: Bruce Momjian
- Re: TOAST usage setting
- From: Gregory Stark
- Re: TOAST usage setting
- Prev by Date: Re: TOAST usage setting
- Next by Date: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make large sequential scans and VACUUMs work in a limited-size
- Previous by thread: Re: TOAST usage setting
- Next by thread: Re: TOAST usage setting
- Indexes: