On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 11:36:56AM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> Thinking further, is simply reducing the number of TOAST chunks the right
> thing to look at? If I want to add a TOAST attribute that requires 100,000
> chunks, and you told me that I could save 10% in the read path for an extra
> 250 chunks of disk space, I would probably choose read performance. If I
> wanted to add 100,000 attributes that were each 3 chunks, and you told me
> that I could save 10% in the read path for an extra 75,000 chunks of disk
> space, I might choose the extra disk space. These are admittedly extreme
> (and maybe even impossible) examples, but my point is that the amount of
> disk space you are willing to give up may be related to the size of the
> attribute. And maybe one way to extract additional read performance with
> this optimization is to use a variable threshold so that we are more likely
> to use it for large attributes.
I might be overthinking this. Maybe it is enough to skip compressing the
attribute whenever compression saves no more than some percentage of the
uncompressed attribute size. A conservative default setting might be
something like 5% or 10%.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
