Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table?
Date
Msg-id 12928.1239205663@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table?  (Ian Mayo <ianmayo@tesco.net>)
Responses Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table?
Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table?
List pgsql-general
Ian Mayo <ianmayo@tesco.net> writes:
> I've got a fairly straightforward table that's similar to a blog table
> (entryId, date, title, author, etc).  There is, however, the
> requirement to allow a single, fairly bulky binary attachment to
> around 1% of the rows.

> There will be a few million rows, and I value efficient searches by
> date, title, and author.

> Would there be a performance advantage in storing the attachment in a
> separate table - linked by entryId foreign key?

No.  You'd basically be manually reinventing the TOAST mechanism;
or the large object mechanism, if you choose to store the blob
as a large object rather than a plain bytea field.  Either way,
it won't physically be in the same table as the main row data.

If you're curious, this goes into some of the gory details:
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/storage-toast.html

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: John R Pierce
Date:
Subject: Re: PGS Tuning Wizard destroys my login
Next
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Now I am back, next thing. Final PGS tuning.