> The compression rates aren't that giantic. I've got 30-50%
> for rule plan strings (size limit on views!!!). And the
> method used only allows for buffer back references of 4K
> offsets at most, so the rate will not grow for larger data
> chunks. That's a heavy tradeoff between compression rate and
> no memory leakage for sure and speed, I know, but I prefer
> not to force it, instead I usually use a bigger hammer (the
> tuple size limit is still our original problem - and another
> IBM 72GB disk doing 22-37 MB/s will make any compressing data
> type obsolete then).
>
> Sorry for the compression specific slang here. Well, anyone
> interested in the code?
In contrib?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
