From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Date: | 2006-05-15 18:18:03 |
Message-ID: | 10654.1147717083@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> A recent post Tom made in -bugs about how bad performance would be if we
> spilled after-commit triggers to disk got me thinking... There are
> several operations the database performs that potentially spill to disk.
> Given that any time that happens we end up caring much less about CPU
> usage and much more about disk IO, for any of these cases that use
> non-random access, compressing the data before sending it to disk would
> potentially be a sizeable win.
Note however that what the code thinks is a spill to disk and what
actually involves disk I/O are two different things. If you think
of it as a spill to kernel disk cache then the attraction is a lot
weaker...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-15 18:23:09 | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
Previous Message | Joachim Wieland | 2006-05-15 18:11:28 | Re: [TODO] Allow commenting of variables ... |