Scott Marlowe wrote: > So, they did exactly what pgsql crew did with TOAST, but instead of > sticking it under an existing datatype that everyone already had, they > made another new type to keep track of. I can't think of a reason to > not just update the text type to be just like the leader's, > Postgresql's, but I'm sure they have their reasons. I'd love to hear > them though. Their text type was accessed through BLOB interfaces at the application/SQL level, so just substituting it would break a lot of things. That said, you'd think they could provide wrappers to allow code used to using the BLOB interfaces to operate on the new no-longer-a-blob type. Perhaps there are performance issues there (say, it being more expensive to repeatedly re-write a tuple with a VARCHAR(MAX) field than to re-write a TEXT field) that meant they preferred to separate it out. Whatever the SQL server folks are, they're not stupid, and I can't imagine they'd do this without at least a half-decent reason. -- Craig Ringer -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
