Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes
Date: 2014-12-15 23:37:17
Message-ID: CAB7nPqT6tRpsy3SrG+-DZ0Rt+UM6NedMUik5oSG1P963_Xz2xA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> OTOH, Our built in compressor as we all know is a complete dog in
> terms of cpu when stacked up against some more modern implementations.
> All that said, as long as there is a clean path to migrating to
> another compression alg should one materialize, that problem can be
> nicely decoupled from this patch as Robert pointed out.
I am curious to see some numbers about that. Has anyone done such
comparison measurements?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2014-12-15 23:39:51 Re: Status of CF 2014-10 and upcoming 2014-12
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2014-12-15 23:35:34 Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes