| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Scott Carey" <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, "Matthew Wakeling" <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 performance tuning questions |
| Date: | 2009-07-30 21:51:28 |
| Message-ID: | 4432.1248990688@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> One thing I've been wondering about is what, exactly, is compressed in
> custom format. Is it like a .tar.gz file, where the compression is a
> layer over the top, or are individual entries compressed?
Individual entries. Eyeball examination of a dump file shows that we
only compress table-data entries, and don't for example waste time
firing up the compressor to process a function body. It's possible
that it'd be worth trying to have some lower limit on the amount of
data in a table before we bother to compress it, but I bet that it
wouldn't make any difference on your databases ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-07-30 21:53:45 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.4 performance tuning questions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-07-30 21:45:26 | Re: autovacuum 'stuck' ? |