Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ildar Musin <i(dot)musin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods
Date: 2017-12-01 21:14:58
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZY+TB-wa6QgwsaL-MHCJAhR9n0ifEKTDq8PTxBuqEW-w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I agree with these thoughts in general, but I'm not quite sure
>>> what is your conclusion regarding the patch.
>>
>> I have not reached one. Sometimes I like to discuss problems before
>> deciding what I think. :-)
>
> That's lame! Let's make decisions without discussion ;-)

Oh, right. What was I thinking?

>> It does seem to me that the patch may be aiming at a relatively narrow
>> target in a fairly large problem space, but I don't know whether to
>> label that as short-sightedness or prudent incrementalism.
>
> I don't know either. I don't think people will start switching their
> text columns to lz4 just because they can, or because they get 4% space
> reduction compared to pglz.

Honestly, if we can give everybody a 4% space reduction by switching
to lz4, I think that's totally worth doing -- but let's not make
people choose it, let's make it the default going forward, and keep
pglz support around so we don't break pg_upgrade compatibility (and so
people can continue to choose it if for some reason it works better in
their use case). That kind of improvement is nothing special in a
specific workload, but TOAST is a pretty general-purpose mechanism. I
have become, through a few bitter experiences, a strong believer in
the value of trying to reduce our on-disk footprint, and knocking 4%
off the size of every TOAST table in the world does not sound
worthless to me -- even though context-aware compression can doubtless
do a lot better.

> But the ability to build per-column dictionaries seems quite powerful, I
> guess. And I don't think that can be easily built directly into JSONB,
> because we don't have a way to provide information about the column
> (i.e. how would you fetch the correct dictionary?).

That's definitely a problem, but I think we should mull it over a bit
more before giving up. I have a few thoughts, but the part of my life
that doesn't happen on the PostgreSQL mailing list precludes
expounding on them right this minute.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bossart, Nathan 2017-12-01 21:16:30 Re: BUG #14941: Vacuum crashes
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2017-12-01 21:09:51 Re: Doc tweak for huge_pages?