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> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |
Date: | 2017-12-18 16:12:34 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoau_qeawSQpod8RLnHwS0uvLkhqBQZNfL4UWpWWHN0NaQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I personally am not quite convinced about that, for the reason I tried
> to explain in my previous messages. I see it as a poor alternative to
> compression built into the data type. I do like the idea of compression
> with external dictionary, however.
I think that compression built into the datatype and what is proposed
here are both useful and everybody's free to work on either one as the
prefer, so I don't see that as a reason not to accept this patch. And
I think this patch can be a stepping stone toward compression with an
external dictionary, so that seems like an affirmative reason to
accept this patch.
> But don't forget that it's not me in this thread - it's my evil twin,
> moonlighting as Mr. Devil's lawyer ;-)
Well, I don't mind you objecting to the patch under any persona, but
so far I'm not finding your reasons convincing...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-12-18 16:40:06 | Re: pgsql: Provide overflow safe integer math inline functions. |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-12-18 16:08:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Proposal: Local indexes for partitioned table |