Re: TOAST usage setting
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Cc: "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2007-06-06T03:27:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- /pgpatches/toast_values (text/x-diff) patch
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote: > > > > 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. OK, what do you suggest for 8.3? Attached are my suggestion to use 512 and a 4k chunk size, which I think means that 2.7k is the worst values that has a loss of around 25%. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +