| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Zedstore - compressed in-core columnar storage |
| Date: | 2019-04-14 16:45:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20190414164510.idlavfnqkutj2h3u@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2019-04-14 18:36:18 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I think those comparisons are cute and we did a fair amount of them when
> considering a drop-in replacement for pglz, but ultimately it might be a
> bit pointless because:
>
> (a) it very much depends on the dataset (one algorithm may work great on
> one type of data, suck on another)
>
> (b) different systems may require different trade-offs (high ingestion
> rate vs. best compression ratio)
>
> (c) decompression speed may be much more important
>
> What I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't obsess about picking one
> particular algorithm too much, because it's entirely pointless. Instead,
> we should probably design the system to support different compression
> algorithms, ideally at column level.
I think we still need to pick a default algorithm, and realistically
that's going to be used by like 95% of the users.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-04-14 17:08:53 | Re: Zedstore - compressed in-core columnar storage |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2019-04-14 16:39:47 | Re: Zedstore - compressed in-core columnar storage |