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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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