From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Compressing table images |
Date: | 2006-05-11 21:05:26 |
Message-ID: | 20060511210526.GB12119@surnet.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Brian Hurt wrote:
> >My apologies if this subject has already been hashed to death, or if
> >this is the wrong list, but I was wondering if people had seen this paper:
> >http://www.cwi.nl/htbin/ins1/publications?request=intabstract&key=ZuHeNeBo:ICDE:06
> >
> >
> >Basically it describes a compression algorithm for tables of a
> >database. The huge advantage of doing this is that it reduced the disk
> >traffic by (approximately) a factor of four- at the cost of more CPU
> >utilization.
> >Any thoughts or comments?
>
> I don't know if that is the algorithm we use but PostgreSQL will
> compress its data within the table.
But only in certain very specific cases. And we compress on a
per-attribute basis. Compressing at the page level is pretty much out
of the question; but compressing at the tuple level I think is doable.
How much benefit that brings is another matter. I think we still have
more use for our limited manpower elsewhere.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-11 21:19:12 | Re: hashagg, statistisics and excessive memory allocation |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-11 21:01:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |