> > I agree that these values need a second look. I think a 
> > TOAST_TUPLE_THRESHOLD well smaller than the current value would
> > easily pay its way. With a little caution to avoid wasting too much 
> > effort on the last few bytes I suspect even as low as 
> 400-500 bytes is probably worthwhile.

But a seq scan (or non cached access) would suddenly mutate to multiple
random accesses, so this is not a win-win situation.

Btw: Do we consider the existance of toasted columns in the seq-scan
cost estimation ?


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

Reply via email to