From: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] interesting observatation regarding views and V7.0 |
Date: | 2000-02-24 01:15:20 |
Message-ID: | 3.0.1.32.20000223171520.0108c3e0@mail.pacifier.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At 06:46 PM 2/23/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Just quietly make text compressed-under-the-hood, you mean? Hmm.
Yep...
>Interesting idea, all right, and it wouldn't create any long-term
>compatibility problem since users couldn't see it directly. I think
>we might have some places in the system that assume char/varchar/text
>all have the same internal representation, but that could probably
>be fixed without too much grief.
I've kind of assumed this might be the case, but have truly been
too busy to dig around looking (which in my case takes a fairly
long time because I'm really only barely familiar with the code)
>> The price of compression/decompression is to some extent
>> balanced by not having to drag as many bytes around during joins
>> and sorts and the like.
>
>Also, there could be a threshold: don't bother trying to compress
>fields that are less than, say, 1K bytes.
Right, I thought about that possibility, too, but it seems a bit
more complicated so I thought I'd raise the simpler-sounding idea
first :)
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Don Baccus | 2000-02-24 01:33:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: about 7.0 LIMIT optimization |
Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-02-24 01:06:39 | Re: [HACKERS] interesting observatation regarding views and V7.0 |