On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 20:30, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > One point that nobody seems to have focused on is whether Alex's > less-compressed table is faster or slower to access than the original. > I dunno if he has any easy way of investigating that for his typical > query mix, but it's certainly a fair question to ask.
Other than the quick pgbench numbers I posted upthread where 8.4 blew 8.3 out of the water with a substring. Not really, this table is mainly insert. A few times a day everything inserted that day gets selected. So while I'm almost positive 8.4 is faster, its probably not really noticeable in my workload. That being said here are some quick numbers: (see attached q.sql for how uninteresting the query is, also this is so slow mainly due to the lack of it using an index, it seq-scans the entire table :() ./pgbench -T600 -n -f q.sql 8.4 with 8.3 TOAST: 6.250298 8.4: 6.460312 (note I dont actually use substring on this table...) ./pgbench -T60 -n -f substring.sql 8.4 w 8.3 TOAST: 12.613394 8.4: 6347.456596
substring.sql
Description: Binary data
q.sql
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