Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
От | Merlin Moncure |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTinBtTQ2mTPvA3n_yF=rLNfeK2RRW7FGOHqfWmv_@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle (Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>) |
Ответы |
Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement
compared to Oracle
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc> wrote: > On 2010-10-27 20:51, Merlin Moncure wrote: > >>> Yes, I am quite aware of how the o/s page cache works. All else being >>> equal, I more compact database obviously would be preferred. However >>> 'all else' is not necessarily equal. I can mount my database on bzip >>> volume, that must make it faster, right? wrong. I understand the >>> postgres storage architecture pretty well, and the low hanging fruit >>> having been grabbed further layout compression is only going to come >>> as a result of tradeoffs. >>> > > Or configureabillity.. Not directly related to overall space consumption > but I have been working on a patch that would make TOAST* kick in > earlier in the process, giving a "slimmer" main table with visibillity > information > and simple columns and moving larger colums more aggressively to TOAST. Do you have any benchmarks supporting if/when such a change would be beneficial? merlin
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: