On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Arthur Silva <arthur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It won't be faster by any means, but it should definitely be incorporated > if any format changes are made (like Tom already suggested). > > I think it's important we gather at least 2 more things before making any > calls: > * Josh tests w/ cache aware patch, which should confirm cache aware is > indeed prefered > * Tests with toast hacked to use lz4 instead, which might ease any > decisions > > > -- > Arthur Silva > > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Arthur Silva <arthur...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > The difference is small but I's definitely faster, which makes sense >> since >> > cache line misses are probably slightly reduced. >> > As in the previous runs, I ran the query a dozen times and took the >> average >> > after excluding runs with a high deviation. >> >> I'm not surprised that it hasn't beaten HEAD. I haven't studied the >> problem in detail, but I don't think that the "cache awareness" of the >> new revision is necessarily a distinct advantage. >> >> -- >> Peter Geoghegan >> > > I'm attaching a quick-n-dirty patch that uses lz4 compression instead of pglz in case someone wants to experiment with it. Seems to work in my test env, I'll make more tests when I get home. PS: gotta love gmail fixed defaults of top-posting...
lz4.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
