From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Andrew Piskorski <atp(at)piskorski(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Date: | 2006-05-17 04:03:15 |
Message-ID: | 15446.1147838595@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> Andrew Piskorski <atp(at)piskorski(dot)com> writes:
>> A corrolary of that is forget compression schemes like gzip - it
>> reduces data size nicely but is far too slow on the cpu to be
>> particularly useful in improving overall throughput rates.
> There are some very fast decompression algorithms:
AFAICS the only sane choice here is to use
src/backend/utils/adt/pg_lzcompress.c, on the grounds that (1) it's
already in the backend, and (2) data compression in general is such a
minefield of patents that we'd be foolish to expose ourselves in more
than one direction.
Certainly, if you can't prototype a convincing performance win using
that algorithm, it's unlikely to be worth anyone's time to look harder.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-17 04:36:09 | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
Previous Message | David Wheeler | 2006-05-17 03:59:21 | Re: PL/pgSQL 'i = i + 1' Syntax |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-17 08:45:59 | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2006-05-17 03:48:21 | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |