| From: | Mitsumasa KONDO <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "ktm(at)rice(dot)edu" <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Arthur Silva <arthurprs(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed(dot)90(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: | 2014-09-11 13:33:32 |
| Message-ID: | CADupcHWj2Mf2FmCzqkB7Fr7SkpUbb_a8yUqvjOabX1K-7g2Cgg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2014-09-11 22:01 GMT+09:00 ktm(at)rice(dot)edu <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 09:37:07AM -0300, Arthur Silva wrote:
> > I agree that there's no reason to fix an algorithm to it, unless maybe
> it's
> > pglz.
>
Yes, it seems difficult to judge only the algorithm performance.
We have to start to consider source code maintenance, quality and the other
factors..
> The big (huge) win for lz4 (not the HC variant) is the enormous compression
> and decompression speed. It compresses quite a bit faster (33%) than snappy
> and decompresses twice as fast as snappy.
Show us the evidence. Postgres members showed the test result and them
consideration.
It's very objective comparing.
Best Regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2014-09-11 13:47:55 | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |
| Previous Message | Arthur Silva | 2014-09-11 13:32:24 | Re: Memory Alignment in Postgres |