On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 11:55:02AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 11:18:02AM +0200, Ludek Finstrle wrote:
> >> I read this value in TOAST section. Is my opinion correct?
> 
> > From http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/storage-toast.html:
> > "TOAST usurps the high-order two bits of the varlena length word,
> > thereby limiting the logical size of any value of a TOAST-able data type
> > to 1Gb (2^30 - 1 bytes)."
> 
> > There was a proposal made some time ago to allow for a variable-length
> > length word format, where one of the bits in each word would specify
> > that there was an additional length word.
> 
> Hm, I don't remember that.  It seems rather pointless, as I'm quite sure
> that the *practical* limit is a great deal less than 1Gb.  Has anyone
> done any performance testing of GB-sized toasted values?

Given how toasted data is currently stored, you're probably correct. If
it was switched to a binary format that didn't have all the table/tuple
overheard (which I seem to recall a discussion about), it could be a
very different story.
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to