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
