Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Compression and on-disk sorting

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Zeugswetter Andreas DCP SD <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Compression and on-disk sorting
Date: 2006-05-19 13:03:31
Message-ID: 28225.1148043811@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> I'm seeing 250,000 blocks being cut down to 9,500 blocks. That's almost
> unbeleiveable. What's in the table?

Yeah, I'd tend to question the test data being used.  gzip does not do
that well on typical text (especially not at the lower settings we'd
likely want to use).

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Ned LillyDate: 2006-05-19 13:14:30
Subject: Re: Toward A Positive Marketing Approach.
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-05-19 12:26:33
Subject: Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group