Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods (mac+lz4.h)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Dilip Kumar
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods (mac+lz4.h)
Дата
Msg-id CAFiTN-sm8Dpx3q92g5ohTdZu1_wKsw96-KiEMf3SoK8DhRPfWw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods (mac+lz4.h)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 7:03 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Also, I see some diffs in the
> indirect_toast test, which seems perhaps worthy of investigation.
> (The diffs look to be just row ordering, but why?)

I have investigated that,  actually in the below insert, after
compression the data size of (repeat('1234567890',50000)) is 1980
bytes with the lz4 whereas with pglz it is 5737 bytes.  So with lz4,
the compressed data are stored inline whereas with pglz those are
getting externalized.  Due to this for one of the update statements
followed by an insert, there was no space on the first page as data
are stored inline so the new tuple is stored on the next page and that
is what affecting the order.  I hope this makes sense.

INSERT INTO indtoasttest(descr, f1, f2) VALUES('one-toasted,one-null',
NULL, repeat('1234567890',50000));


-- 
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCH] Identify LWLocks in tracepoints
Следующее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Logical Replication vs. 2PC