Guaranteed compression of large data fields is the responsibility of the
client. The database should feel free to compress behind the scenes if
it turns out to be desirable, but an expectation that it compresses is
wrong in my opinion.
That said, I'm wondering why compression has to be a problem or why >1
Mbyte is a reasonable compromise? I missed the original thread that lead
to 8.4. It seems to me that transparent file system compression doesn't
have limits like "files must be less than 1 Mbyte to be compressed".
They don't exhibit poor file system performance. I remember back in the
386/486 days, that I would always DriveSpace compress everything,
because hard disks were so slow then that DriveSpace would actually
increase performance. The toast tables already give a sort of
block-addressable scheme. Compression can be on a per block or per set
of blocks basis allowing for seek into the block, or if compression
doesn't seem to be working for the first few blocks, the later blocks
can be stored uncompressed? Or is that too complicated compared to what
we have now? :-)
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <m...@mielke.cc>
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
