Received: from relay.gcom.ru (Garant-Siberia-RadioNET.gcom.ru [194.84.180.33]
	(may be forged)) by hub.org (8.8.8/8.7.5) with ESMTP id
	HAA25236 for <pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 27 Jul 1998 07:48:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by relay.gcom.ru (8.6.10/8.6.10) id SAA24395;
	Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:48:09 +0700
Received: from avd.gcom.ru(194.84.180.56)
	via SMTP by Garant-Siberia-RadioNET.gcom.ru, id smtpd024385;
	Mon Jul 27 18:47:58 1998
Received: (from avd@localhost) by avd.gcom.ru (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA00515;
	Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:55:27 +0700 (NSS) (envelope-from avd)
Sender: avd@avd.gcom.ru
To: Peter T Mount <peter@retep.org.uk>
cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] large objects
References: <Pine.LNX.3.96.980727104640.934F-100000@maidast.retep.org.uk>
From: Aleksey Demakov <avd@gcom.ru>
Date: 27 Jul 1998 18:55:22 +0700
In-Reply-To: Peter T Mount's message of Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:48:47 +0100 (GMT)
Message-ID: <86d8arld91.fsf@avd.gcom.ru>
Lines: 19
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34

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? It would
be very nice to have a new postgres type for this. The 8k limit is very
restrictive. What do postgres gurus think?

Aleksey

-- 
Aleksey Demakov
avd@gcom.ru