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.

I'm not sure how general that result is.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

• Re: Improve compression speeds in pg_lzcompress.c at 2013-01-07 16:16:07 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Improve compression speeds in pg_lzcompress.c at 2013-01-07 21:19:36 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Kohei KaiGai	Date: 2013-01-07 21:14:32
	Subject: Re: ALTER command reworks
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2013-01-07 21:06:23
	Subject: Re: ALTER command reworks