4 ms·
Most of what you wrote there is simply not true for modern DBMS, specifically PostgreSQL has a mechanism called TOAST (https://www.enterprisedb.com/postgres-tut
by brazzy 3y ago
Most of what you wrote there is simply not true for modern DBMS, specifically PostgreSQL has a mechanism called TOAST (https://www.enterprisedb.com/postgres-tutorials/postgresql-toast-and-working-blobsclobs-explained https://www.enterprisedb.com/postgres-tutorials/postgresql-t...) that does exactly what you claim "they aren't probably interested in doing" and completely eliminates any performance penalty of large objects in a table when they are not used.
- crabbone 3y agosigh... lol, an "expert". PostgreSQL just like most RDBMS uses filesystem as a backend. It cannot be faster than the filesystem it uses to store its data. At best, you may be able to configure it to use more caching, and then it will be "faster" when you have enough memory for caching...
- brazzy 3y agoWhat does that have to do with my comment? I didn't say say that an RDBMS is faster than a filesystem, just that your statements about them "seeing serious drops in performance when it comes to indexing, filtering, searching etc." are clearly wrong. It seems very clear that it is you who knows some vaguely relevant bit of trivia, but actually have no clue about the subject in general, and try to make up for that in arrogance. Which is, honestly, pretty embarrassing.