> > I agree that these values need a second look. I think a > > TOAST_TUPLE_THRESHOLD well smaller than the current value would still > > easily pay its way. With a little caution to avoid wasting too much > > effort on the last few bytes I suspect even as low as > 400-500 bytes is probably worthwhile.
But a seq scan (or non cached access) would suddenly mutate to multiple random accesses, so this is not a win-win situation. Btw: Do we consider the existance of toasted columns in the seq-scan cost estimation ? Andreas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
