| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TOAST compression |
| Date: | 2006-02-26 16:00:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20060226160046.GX82012@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 09:39:34PM -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
> It's true that LZ decompression is fast, so we should probably use the
> compressed version of the datum unless the reduction in size is very
> small. I'm not sure precisely what that threshold should be, however.
Any idea on how decompression time compares to IO bandwidth? In other
words, how long does it take to decompress 1MB vs read that 1MB vs read
whatever the uncompressed size is?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-26 17:19:17 | Re: TOAST compression |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-02-26 14:58:29 | Re: possible design bug with PQescapeString() |