On 01/07/2013 04:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
I just went back and looked. Unless I'm misreading it he has about a 2.5
times speed improvement but about a 20% worse compression result.
What would be interesting would be to see if the knobs he's tweaked
could be tweaked a bit more to give us substantial speedup without
significant space degradation.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2013-01-07 21:58:52|
|Subject: Re: ALTER command reworks|
|Previous:||From: Merlin Moncure||Date: 2013-01-07 21:36:25|
|Subject: Re: Improve compression speeds in pg_lzcompress.c|