On 12/01/2017 08:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Tomas Vondra > <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> It has very little impact on this patch, as it has nothing to do with >> columnar storage. That is, each value is compressed independently. > > I understand that this patch is not about columnar storage, but I > think the idea that we may want to operate on the compressed data > directly is not only applicable to that case. >
Yeah. To clarify, my point was that column stores benefit from compressing many values at once, and then operating on this compressed vector. That is not what this patch is doing (or can do), of course. But I certainly do agree that if the compression can be integrated into the data type, allowing processing on compressed representation, then that will beat whatever this patch is doing, of course ... >> >> I agree with these thoughts in general, but I'm not quite sure >> what is your conclusion regarding the patch. > > I have not reached one. Sometimes I like to discuss problems before > deciding what I think. :-) > That's lame! Let's make decisions without discussion ;-) > > It does seem to me that the patch may be aiming at a relatively narrow > target in a fairly large problem space, but I don't know whether to > label that as short-sightedness or prudent incrementalism. > I don't know either. I don't think people will start switching their text columns to lz4 just because they can, or because they get 4% space reduction compared to pglz. But the ability to build per-column dictionaries seems quite powerful, I guess. And I don't think that can be easily built directly into JSONB, because we don't have a way to provide information about the column (i.e. how would you fetch the correct dictionary?). regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
