On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> On 12/08/2014 09:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> I still think that just compressing the whole record if it's above a
>> certain size is going to be better than compressing individual
>> parts. Michael argued thta that'd be complicated because of the varying
>> size of the required 'scratch space'. I don't buy that argument
>> though. It's easy enough to simply compress all the data in some fixed
>> chunk size. I.e. always compress 64kb in one go. If there's more
>> compress that independently.
>
>
> Doing it in fixed-size chunks doesn't help - you have to hold onto the
> compressed data until it's written to the WAL buffers.
>
> But you could just allocate a "large enough" scratch buffer, and give up if
> it doesn't fit. If the compressed data doesn't fit in e.g. 3 * 8kb, it
> didn't compress very well, so there's probably no point in compressing it
> anyway. Now, an exception to that might be a record that contains something
> else than page data, like a commit record with millions of subxids, but I
> think we could live with not compressing those, even though it would be
> beneficial to do so.
Another thing to consider is the possibility to control at GUC level
what is the maximum size of a record we allow to compress.
--
Michael