From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | scrappy(at)hub(dot)org (The Hermit Hacker) |
Cc: | vadim(at)sable(dot)krasnoyarsk(dot)su, abrams(at)philos(dot)umass(dot)edu, hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] include/config.h FOLLOWUP |
Date: | 1998-01-05 05:08:41 |
Message-ID: | 199801050508.AAA27861@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > >
> > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Vadim B. Mikheev wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just remember that Informix (and others) use 2K blocks.
> > >
> > > So we're 4x what the commercial ones are as of right now?
> >
> > That is because they do not use the file system, so they try to match
> > the raw disk block sizes, while we try to match the file system size.
>
> Irrelevant to my question...our tuples...are they 4x the size of the
> commercial vendors, or is Vadim talking about something altogether different?
>
> If we are 4x their size, then I think this whole discussion is a joke since
> we are already *way* better then "the others"
That's a good question. What is the maximum tuple size for Informix or
Oracle tuples?
--
Bruce Momjian
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 1998-01-05 05:16:49 | subselect |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1998-01-05 04:54:25 | Re: [HACKERS] include/config.h FOLLOWUP |