On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Why would that be a good tradeoff to make? Larger stored values require > more I/O, which is likely to swamp any CPU savings in the compression > step. Not to mention that a value once written may be read many times, > so the extra I/O cost could be multiplied many times over later on.
I agree with this analysis, but I note that the test results show it actually improving things along both parameters. I'm not sure how general that result is. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
