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

• Re: Improve compression speeds in pg_lzcompress.c at 2013-01-07 21:07:51 from Robert Haas

Responses

• Re: Improve compression speeds in pg_lzcompress.c at 2013-01-07 21:44:50 from Andrew Dunstan
• Re: Improve compression speeds in pg_lzcompress.c at 2013-01-07 22:00:39 from Robert Haas

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