From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | "Stephen R(dot) van den Berg" <srb(at)cuci(dot)nl>, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Significantly larger toast tables on 8.4? |
Date: | 2009-01-03 22:45:44 |
Message-ID: | 200901040045.45110.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday 02 January 2009 22:23:13 Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
> Three things:
> a. Shouldn't it in theory be possible to have a decompression algorithm
> which is IO-bound because it decompresses faster than the disk can
> supply the data? (On common current hardware).
> b. Has the current algorithm been carefully benchmarked and/or optimised
> and/or chosen to fit the IO-bound target as close as possible?
> c. Are there any well-known pitfalls/objections which would prevent me from
> changing the algorithm to something more efficient (read: IO-bound)?
copyright licenses and patents
Which doesn't mean changing anything is impossible, but it is tricky in those
nontechnical ways.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-01-03 22:47:21 | Re: [SPAM] Re: posix_fadvise v22 |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2009-01-03 22:31:31 | Re: dblink vs SQL/MED |