Re: Compression and on-disk sorting - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Martijn van Oosterhout
Subject Re: Compression and on-disk sorting
Date
Msg-id 20060519072903.GA17873@svana.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Compression and on-disk sorting  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
Responses Re: Compression and on-disk sorting  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Compression and on-disk sorting  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 10:02:44PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> http://jim.nasby.net/misc/compress_sort.txt is preliminary results.
> I've run into a slight problem in that even at a compression level of
> -3, zlib is cutting the on-disk size of sorts by 25x. So my pgbench sort
> test with scale=150 that was producing a 2G on-disk sort is now
> producing a 80M sort, which obviously fits in memory. And cuts sort
> times by more than half.

I'm seeing 250,000 blocks being cut down to 9,500 blocks. That's almost
unbeleiveable. What's in the table? It would seem to imply that our
tuple format is far more compressable than we expected.

Do you have any stats on CPU usage? Memory usage?

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout   <kleptog@svana.org>   http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Victor B. Wagner"
Date:
Subject: SSL certificate info on SQL level and HSM support for libpq
Next
From: "Jeroen T. Vermeulen"
Date:
Subject: Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?