Re: Any risk in increasing BLCKSZ to get larger tuples?
От | Joseph Shraibman |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Any risk in increasing BLCKSZ to get larger tuples? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 39EF718E.4DD8B9C@selectacast.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Any risk in increasing BLCKSZ to get larger tuples? (Philip Hallstrom <philip@adhesivemedia.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Steve Wolfe wrote: > > > > A trick you can use in 7.0.* to squeeze out a little more space is > > > to declare your large text fields as "lztext" --- this invokes > > > inline compression, which might get you a factor of 2 or so on typical > > > mail messages. lztext will go away again in 7.1, since TOAST supersedes > > > it, > > > > Uh, why. Does TOAST do automatic compression? If people need to store > > huge blocks of text (like a DNA sequence) inline compression isn't just > > a hack to squeeze bigger text into a tuple. > > I'd guess that it's a speed issue. Decompressing everything in the table > for every select sounds like a great waste of CPU power, to me, especially > when hard drives and RAM are cheap. Kind of like the idea of "drivespace" > on Windows - nice idea, but it slowed things down quite a bit. In some cases yes, in some no. Simple text should compress/decompress quickly and the cpu time wasted is made up for by less hardware access time and smaller db files. If you have a huge database the smaller db files could be critical. -- Joseph Shraibman jks@selectacast.net Increase signal to noise ratio. http://www.targabot.com
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: