Re: Compressing table images

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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