> 16 июня 2021 г., в 12:18, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> написал(а): > Among the > remaining two I would be tempted to choose LZ4. That's consistent > with what toast can use now. I agree that allowing just lz4 - is already a huge step ahead. But I'd suggest supporting zstd as well. Currently we only compress 8Kb chunks and zstd had no runaway to fully unwrap it's potential. In WAL-G we observed ~3x improvement in network utilisation when switched from lz4 to zstd in WAL archive compression. BTW we could get rid of whole hole-in-a-page thing if we would set lz4 as default. This could simplify FPI code. Thanks! Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Andres Freund
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Justin Pryzby
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Michael Paquier
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Justin Pryzby
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Heikki Linnakangas
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Michael Paquier
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Peter Eisentraut
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Justin Pryzby
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Michael Paquier
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Michael Paquier
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Andrey Borodin
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Heikki Linnakangas
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Andrey Borodin
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Michael Paquier
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Heikki Linnakangas
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Michael Paquier
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Michael Paquier
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Michael Paquier
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Andrey Borodin
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Michael Paquier
- Re: Different compression methods for FPI Justin Pryzby