From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "pgsql-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Repair cosmetic damage (done by pg_indent?) |
Date: | 2007-08-04 20:04:33 |
Message-ID: | 877iobkqwe.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> The scenario I was describing was having, for example, 20 fields each
>> of which are char(100) and store 'x' (which are padded with 99
>> spaces). So the row is 2k but the fields are highly compressible, but
>> shorter than the 256 byte minimum.
>
> To be blunt, the solution to problems like that is sending the DBA to a
> re-education camp. I don't think we should invest huge amounts of
> effort on something that's trivially fixed by using the correct datatype
> instead of the wrong datatype.
Sorry, there was a bit of a mixup here. The scenario I described above is what
it would take to get Postgres to actually try to compress a small string given
the way the toaster works.
In the real world interesting cases wouldn't be so extreme. Having a single
CHAR(n) or a text field which contains any other very compressible string
could easily not be compressed currently due to being under 256 bytes.
I think the richer target here is doing some kind of cross-record compression.
For example, xml text columns often contain the same tags over and over again
in successive records but any single datum wouldn't be compressible.
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | daveg | 2007-08-04 21:09:58 | Re: Repair cosmetic damage (done by pg_indent?) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-04 19:55:57 | Re: Repair cosmetic damage (done by pg_indent?) |