From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ildar Musin <i(dot)musin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |
Date: | 2017-12-01 21:14:58 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZY+TB-wa6QgwsaL-MHCJAhR9n0ifEKTDq8PTxBuqEW-w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I agree with these thoughts in general, but I'm not quite sure
>>> what is your conclusion regarding the patch.
>>
>> I have not reached one. Sometimes I like to discuss problems before
>> deciding what I think. :-)
>
> That's lame! Let's make decisions without discussion ;-)
Oh, right. What was I thinking?
>> It does seem to me that the patch may be aiming at a relatively narrow
>> target in a fairly large problem space, but I don't know whether to
>> label that as short-sightedness or prudent incrementalism.
>
> I don't know either. I don't think people will start switching their
> text columns to lz4 just because they can, or because they get 4% space
> reduction compared to pglz.
Honestly, if we can give everybody a 4% space reduction by switching
to lz4, I think that's totally worth doing -- but let's not make
people choose it, let's make it the default going forward, and keep
pglz support around so we don't break pg_upgrade compatibility (and so
people can continue to choose it if for some reason it works better in
their use case). That kind of improvement is nothing special in a
specific workload, but TOAST is a pretty general-purpose mechanism. I
have become, through a few bitter experiences, a strong believer in
the value of trying to reduce our on-disk footprint, and knocking 4%
off the size of every TOAST table in the world does not sound
worthless to me -- even though context-aware compression can doubtless
do a lot better.
> But the ability to build per-column dictionaries seems quite powerful, I
> guess. And I don't think that can be easily built directly into JSONB,
> because we don't have a way to provide information about the column
> (i.e. how would you fetch the correct dictionary?).
That's definitely a problem, but I think we should mull it over a bit
more before giving up. I have a few thoughts, but the part of my life
that doesn't happen on the PostgreSQL mailing list precludes
expounding on them right this minute.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2017-12-01 21:16:30 | Re: BUG #14941: Vacuum crashes |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-12-01 21:09:51 | Re: Doc tweak for huge_pages? |