On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 6:30 AM, KONDO Mitsumasa
<kondo.mitsumasa@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> (2013/10/13 0:14), Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> But maybe pglz is just not a good fit for this, it really
>>> isn't a very good algorithm in this day and aage.
>
> +1. This compression algorithm is needed more faster than pglz which is like
> general compression algorithm, to avoid the CPU bottle-neck. I think pglz
> doesn't have good performance, and it is like fossil compression algorithm.
> So we need to change latest compression algorithm for more better future.
>
>
>> Do you think that if WAL reduction or performance with other
>> compression algorithm (for ex. snappy) is better, then chances of
>> getting the new compression algorithm in postresql will be more?
>
> Latest compression algorithms papers(also snappy) have indecated. I think it
> is enough to select algorithm. It may be also good work in postgres.
Snappy is good mainly for un-compressible data, see the link below:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAZKuFZCOCHsswQM60ioDO_hk12tA7OG3YcJA8v=4YebMOA-wA@mail.gmail.com
I think it is bit difficult to prove that any one algorithm is best
for all kind of loads.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
