Re: Different compression methods for FPI - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrey Borodin
Subject Re: Different compression methods for FPI
Date
Msg-id 390DF859-3362-4299-88FC-130161950C0D@yandex-team.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Different compression methods for FPI  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thanks for benchmarks, Justin!


> 14 июня 2021 г., в 06:24, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> написал(а):
>
> The GUC is PGC_USERSET
Oh, wow, that's neat. I did not realize that we can tune this for each individual client connection. Cool!

> pglz writes ~half as much, but takes twice as long as uncompressed:
> |Time: 3362.912 ms (00:03.363)
> |wal_bytes        | 11644224
>
> zlib writes ~4x less than ncompressed, and still much faster than pglz
> |Time: 2167.474 ms (00:02.167)
> |wal_bytes        | 5611653
>
> lz4 is as fast as uncompressed, and writes a bit more than pglz:
> |Time: 1612.874 ms (00:01.613)
> |wal_bytes        | 12397123
>
> zstd(6) is slower than lz4, but compresses better than anything but zlib.
> |Time: 1808.881 ms (00:01.809)
> |wal_bytes        | 6395993

I was wrong about zlib: it has its point on Pareto frontier. At least for this test.

Thanks!

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrey Borodin
Date:
Subject: Re: GiST operator class for bool
Next
From: Matthias van de Meent
Date:
Subject: Re: pg14b1 stuck in lazy_scan_prune/heap_page_prune of pg_statistic