| From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] compression in LO and other fields |
| Date: | 1999-11-12 03:50:16 |
| Message-ID: | 199911120350.WAA26738@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The compression rates aren't that giantic. I've got 30-50%
> for rule plan strings (size limit on views!!!). And the
> method used only allows for buffer back references of 4K
> offsets at most, so the rate will not grow for larger data
> chunks. That's a heavy tradeoff between compression rate and
> no memory leakage for sure and speed, I know, but I prefer
> not to force it, instead I usually use a bigger hammer (the
> tuple size limit is still our original problem - and another
> IBM 72GB disk doing 22-37 MB/s will make any compressing data
> type obsolete then).
>
> Sorry for the compression specific slang here. Well, anyone
> interested in the code?
In contrib?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Theo Kramer | 1999-11-12 05:09:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Slow - grindingly slow - query |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 1999-11-12 03:32:58 | Re: [HACKERS] compression in LO and other fields |