Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The thing is, 100% extra space is cheap, but the processing power for 
>> making the need for that extra space go away is not.

> That's simply untrue for most applications.

Well, it's true for some and not true for others: we hear from plenty of
people who seem to be more CPU-bound than IO-bound, and the former group
would not like a change along this line.  The trick with any space-saving
change would be to not expend so many cycles as to make things a lot
worse for the CPU-bound crowd.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to