On 27 Jul 1998, Aleksey Demakov wrote:
> Peter T Mount <peter@retep.org.uk> writes:
>
> >
> > The object is stored using a table/index pair, and takes up more disk
> > space than a single object.
> >
>
> How much more? And what about performance?
>
> In fact I don't need very large objects. 64k or even 32k will suffice.
> Could such not-so-large objects be implemented more effectively?
Anything larger than the page size (default is 8k, but can be larger) are
a large object. The internals do alow for multiple storage managers, so it
is possible to use other methods than the current "Inversion" scheme.
We did have a posibility of a different manager, but I've heared nothing
of it for some time now (pre 6.3 if memory serves)/
> It would be very nice to have a new postgres type for this. The 8k limit
> is very restrictive. What do postgres gurus think?
Part of the solution for the BLOB orphaning problem that JDBC & ODBC have
requires a unique type 'lo' (required to differenciate between a generic
oid, and a large object while vacuuming).
However, for most cases, the existing lo interface is the only realistic
way of handling them.
--
Peter T Mount peter@retep.org.uk or petermount@earthling.net
Main Homepage: http://www.retep.org.uk
************ Someday I may rebuild this signature completely ;-) ************
Work Homepage: http://www.maidstone.gov.uk Work EMail: peter@maidstone.gov.uk
