Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Why would that be a good tradeoff to make? Larger stored values require
>> more I/O, which is likely to swamp any CPU savings in the compression
>> step. Not to mention that a value once written may be read many times,
>> so the extra I/O cost could be multiplied many times over later on.
> I agree with this analysis, but I note that the test results show it
> actually improving things along both parameters.
Hm ... one of us is reading those results backwards, then.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Merlin Moncure||Date: 2013-01-07 21:36:25|
|Subject: Re: Improve compression speeds in pg_lzcompress.c|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2013-01-07 21:16:38|
|Subject: Re: psql \l to accept patterns|