| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Compression dictionaries for JSONB |
| Date: | 2023-02-09 11:01:12 |
| Message-ID: | DA2F961D-4A47-484A-98B5-49815479740C@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On February 9, 2023 2:50:57 AM PST, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:
>Hi Andres,
>
>> > So to clarify, are we talking about tuple-level compression? Or
>> > perhaps page-level compression?
>>
>> Tuple level.
>
>> although my own patch proposed attribute-level compression, not
>> tuple-level one, it is arguably closer to tuple-level approach than
>> page-level one
>
>Just wanted to make sure that by tuple-level we mean the same thing.
>
>When saying tuple-level do you mean that the entire tuple should be
>compressed as one large binary (i.e. similarly to page-level
>compression but more granularly), or every single attribute should be
>compressed separately (similarly to how TOAST does this)?
Good point - should have been clearer. I meant attribute wise compression. Like we do today, except that we would use a dictionary to increase compression rates.
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | John Naylor | 2023-02-09 12:56:27 | Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2023-02-09 10:55:22 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |