From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <wieck(at)debis(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz, t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] compression in LO and other fields |
Date: | 1999-11-12 22:02:54 |
Message-ID: | 382C8E8E.999C67A1@tm.ee |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> Of course.
>
> Well, you asked for the rates on the smaller html files only.
> 78 files, 131 bytes min, 10000 bytes max, 4582 bytes avg,
> 357383 bytes total.
>
> gzip -9 outputs 145659 bytes (59.2%)
> gzip -1 outputs 155113 bytes (56.6%)
> my code outputs 184109 bytes (48.5%)
>
> 67 files, 2000 bytes min, 10000 bytes max, 5239 bytes avg,
> 351006 bytes total.
>
> gzip -9 outputs 141772 bytes (59.6%)
> gzip -1 outputs 151150 bytes (56.9%)
> my code outputs 179428 bytes (48.9%)
>
> The threshold will surely be a tuning parameter of interest.
> Another tuning option must be to allow/deny compression per
> table at all. Then we could have both options, using a
> compressing field type to define which portion of a tuple to
> compress, or allow to compress the entire tuples.
The next step would be tweaking the costs for sequential scans vs.
index scans.
I guess that the indexes would stay uncompressed ?
------
Hannu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 1999-11-12 22:11:12 | Re: [HACKERS] compression in LO and other fields |
Previous Message | bayard kohlhepp | 1999-11-12 21:47:33 | how should you define a struct within EXEC SQL section? |