Re: [HACKERS] compression in LO and other fields

>
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> > Well, you asked for the rates on the smaller html files only.
> > 78 files, 131 bytes min, 10000 bytes max, 4582 bytes avg,
> > 357383 bytes total.
> >
> > gzip -9 outputs 145659 bytes (59.2%)
> > gzip -1 outputs 155113 bytes (56.6%)
> > my code outputs 184109 bytes (48.5%)
> >
> > 67 files, 2000 bytes min, 10000 bytes max, 5239 bytes avg,
> > 351006 bytes total.
> >
> > gzip -9 outputs 141772 bytes (59.6%)
> > gzip -1 outputs 151150 bytes (56.9%)
> > my code outputs 179428 bytes (48.9%)
> >
> > The threshold will surely be a tuning parameter of interest.
> > Another tuning option must be to allow/deny compression per
> > table at all. Then we could have both options, using a
> > compressing field type to define which portion of a tuple to
> > compress, or allow to compress the entire tuples.
>
> The next step would be tweaking the costs for sequential scans vs.
> index scans.
>
> I guess that the indexes would stay uncompressed ?
>
> ------
> Hannu
>

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #