| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Table and Index compression |
| Date: | 2009-08-07 11:59:57 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e0908070459l5a3e855cu2ed146f7e18c57bc@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Sam Mason<sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>> Well most users want compression for the space savings. So running out
>> of space sooner than without compression when most of the space is
>> actually unused would disappoint them.
>
> Note, that as far as I can tell for a filesystems you only need to keep
> enough reserved for the amount of uncompressed dirty buffers you have in
> memory. As space runs out in the filesystem all that happens is that
> the amount of (uncompressed?) dirty buffers you can safely have around
> decreases.
And when it drops to zero?
> In PG's case, it would seem possible to do the compression and then
> check to see if the resulting size is greater than 4kB. If it is you
> write into the 4kB page size and write uncompressed data. Upon reading
> you do the inverse, if it's 4kB then no need to decompress. I believe
> TOAST does this already.
It does, as does gzip and afaik every compression system.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-08-07 12:18:22 | Re: Table and Index compression |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2009-08-07 11:55:48 | Re: Split-up ECPG patches |