Re: How does TOAST compare to other databases' mechanisms?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: How does TOAST compare to other databases' mechanisms? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5176.970868821@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | How does TOAST compare to other databases' mechanisms? (Frank Joerdens <frank@joerdens.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: How does TOAST compare to other databases' mechanisms?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Frank Joerdens <frank@joerdens.de> writes: > Can I go around bragging to my SQL-minded friends about using this > really cool thing that no other database has, or should I keep my mouth > shut because it's actually not so cool? IMHO it's pretty cool. You get the benefits of BLOB storage without having to deal with weird declarations or access methods. I have no idea whether any other databases do it the same way, but simply removing the limit on physical tuple length wouldn't have been as nice. See, with a toasted column, you don't pay to suck the contents of the column into memory when you read the row for a query that doesn't actually touch that column. So, for example, you might have a table declared like CREATE TABLE foo (key1 text, moddate timestamp, big_horking_data text); and you can do things like SELECT big_horking_data FROM foo WHERE key1 = 'bar' AND moddate > 'yesterday'; Here the table is essentially acting as an index for the BLOB storage: the system won't bother to fetch the BLOB values for the rows that fail the WHERE check. You can't do that without lots of cruft in any non-TOAST-like scheme, AFAICS. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: