On 7/7/15 7:07 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-07-03 18:03:58 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I have just looked through this thread, and TBH I think we should reject
>> this patch altogether --- not RWF, but "no we don't want this". The
>> use-case remains hypothetical: no performance numbers showing a real-world
>> benefit have been exhibited AFAICS.
>
> It's not that hard to imagine a performance benefit though? If the
> toasted column is accessed infrequently/just after filtering on other
> columns (not uncommon) it could very well be beneficial to put the main
> table on fast storage (SSD) and the toast table on slow storage
> (spinning rust).
>
> I've seen humoungous toast tables that are barely ever read for tables
> that are constantly a couple times in the field.
+1. I know of one case where the heap was ~8GB and TOAST was over 400GB.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com