From: | Samba <saasira(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Call for Google Summer of Code (GSoC) 2012: Project ideas? |
Date: | 2012-03-13 18:58:59 |
Message-ID: | CAKgWO9+uLAX3X+BcJ6pkHyUw=ZZN2wh8aPcNOEdda7aeFhb9cQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Excuse me if what i say below is nonsensical, for I haven't read much about
compression techniques and hence these ramblings are just out of common
sense.
I think the debate about level (row, page, file) of compression arises when
we strictly stick to the axioms of compression which require that all the
info that would be needed for decompression must also be presented in the
same compressed unit.
Can't we relax this rule a bit and separate out the compression-hints into
separate file, like the way we have a table data in one file and the
positional references [indexes] in another file? will it not eliminate this
dilemma about the boundaries of compression?
perhaps a periodic auto vacuum like compressor daemon can take up the job
of recompression to have the compression-hints updated as per the latest
data present in the file/page at that instant.
Regards,
Samba
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John R Pierce | 2012-03-13 19:07:28 | Re: Call for Google Summer of Code (GSoC) 2012: Project ideas? |
Previous Message | Jim Ostler | 2012-03-13 16:49:34 | Re: Matching on keyword or phrases within a field that is delimited with an "or" operator "|" |