Re: TOAST usage setting

"Gregory Stark" <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:

> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.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