Re: Compressed binary field
От | Edson Richter |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Compressed binary field |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BLU0-SMTP409F77A1491354802B7D052CF950@phx.gbl обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Compressed binary field (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Em 17/09/2012 00:17, Jeff Janes escreveu: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Edson Richter <edsonrichter@hotmail.com> wrote: >> No, there is no problem. Just trying to reduce database size forcing these >> fields to compress. >> Actual database size = 8Gb >> Backup size = 1.6Gb (5x smaller) >> >> Seems to me (IMHO) that there is room for improvement in database storage >> (we don't have many indexes, and biggest tables are just the ones with bytea >> fields). That's why I've asked for experts counseling. > There are two things to keep in mind. One is that each datum is > compressed separately, so that a lot of redundancy that occurs between > fields of different tuples, but not within any given tuple, will not > be available to TOAST, but will be available to the compression of a > dump file. > > Another thing is that PG's TOAST compression was designed to be simple > and fast and patent free, and often it is not all that good. It is > quite good if you have long stretches of repeats of a single > character, or exact densely spaced repeats of a sequence of characters > ("123123123123123..."), but when the redundancy is less simple it does > a much worse job than gzip, for example, does. > > It is possible but unlikely there is a bug somewhere, but most likely > your documents just aren't very compressible using pglz_compress. > > Cheers, > > Jeff Most of data is XML (few are PDF). Probably, the best solution for me is to compress before sending to database. Thanks for the info. Regards, Edson.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: