| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Crooke <dcrooke(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Newall <postgresql(at)davidnewall(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: GZIP of pre-zipped output |
| Date: | 2010-03-22 02:46:32 |
| Message-ID: | 4BA6DA08.4010201@postnewspapers.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 22/03/2010 1:04 AM, Dave Crooke wrote:
> If you are really so desparate to save a couple of GB that you are
> resorting to -Z9 then I'd suggest using bzip2 instead.
>
> bzip is designed for things like installer images where there will be
> massive amounts of downloads, so it uses a ton of cpu during
> compression, but usually less than -Z9 and makes a better result.
bzip2 doesn't work very well on gzip'd (deflated) data, though. For good
results, you'd want to feed it uncompressed data, which is a bit of a
pain when the compression is part of the PDF document structure and when
you otherwise want the PDFs to remain compressed.
Anyway, if you're going for extreme compression, these days 7zip is
often a better option than bzip2.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-03-22 03:00:31 | Re: GZIP of pre-zipped output |
| Previous Message | Dave Crooke | 2010-03-22 01:14:19 | Re: mysql to postgresql, performance questions |