On 2014-08-26 15:01:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > > On 08/26/2014 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I was hoping you'd get some useful data from that, but so far it seems > >> like a rehash of points made in the on-list thread :-( > > > Unfortunately even the outside commentors don't seem to understand that > > storage size *is* related to speed, it's exchanging I/O speed for CPU speed. > > Yeah, exactly. Given current hardware trends, data compression is > becoming more of a win not less as time goes on: CPU cycles are cheap > even compared to main memory access, let alone mass storage. So I'm > thinking we want to adopt a compression-friendly data format even if > it measures out as a small loss currently.
On the other hand the majority of databases these day fit into main memory due to its increasing sizes and postgres is more often CPU than IO bound. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
