| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] COPY .. COMPRESSED |
| Date: | 2013-01-15 17:31:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20130115173117.GS16126@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Claudio Freire (klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > Where it does work well is when you move into a bulk-data mode (ala
> > COPY) and can compress relatively large amounts of data into a smaller
> > number of full-size packets to be sent.
>
> Well... exactly. COPY is one case, big result sets is another.
> And packet headers can include whether each packet is compressed or
> not, which is quite transparent and easy to handle. There could even
> be a negotiation phase and make it backwards-compatible.
COPY and a large result set are the only cases, and a large result set
could easily be put inside of a COPY statement. I agree that large
result sets outside of COPY could benefit from compression and perhaps
we can formulate a way to support that also.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-01-15 18:10:05 | Re: unlogged tables vs. GIST |
| Previous Message | Sergey Koposov | 2013-01-15 17:27:50 | Re: Curious buildfarm failures (fwd) |