On 01/07/2013 04:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Why would that be a good tradeoff to make? Larger stored values require
>>> more I/O, which is likely to swamp any CPU savings in the compression
>>> step. Not to mention that a value once written may be read many times,
>>> so the extra I/O cost could be multiplied many times over later on.
>> I agree with this analysis, but I note that the test results show it
>> actually improving things along both parameters.
> Hm ... one of us is reading those results backwards, then.
>
>
I just went back and looked. Unless I'm misreading it he has about a 2.5
times speed improvement but about a 20% worse compression result.
What would be interesting would be to see if the knobs he's tweaked
could be tweaked a bit more to give us substantial speedup without
significant space degradation.
cheers
andrew
