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 19:30:54 |
Message-ID: | 24764.1147894254@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:
> The ideal way to handle the situation you're describing would be to interleave
> the tuples so that you have all 1000 values of the first column, followed by
> all 1000 values of the second column and so on. Then you run a generic
> algorithm on this and it achieves very high compression rates since there are
> a lot of repeating patterns.
It's not obvious to me that that yields a form more compressible than
what we have now. As long as the previous value is within the lookback
window, an LZ-style compressor will still be able to use it. More
importantly, the layout you describe would be unable to take advantage
of any cross-column correlation, which in real data is likely to be a
useful property for compression.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-17 19:50:59 | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-05-17 19:02:10 | Re: [GENERAL] Querying libpq compile time options |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-17 19:50:59 | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-05-17 17:38:47 | Re: [PATCH] Compression and on-disk sorting |