Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Merlin Moncure
Subject Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Date
Msg-id AANLkTinBtTQ2mTPvA3n_yF=rLNfeK2RRW7FGOHqfWmv_@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle  (Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>)
Responses Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
List pgsql-performance
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc> wrote:
> On 2010-10-27 20:51, Merlin Moncure wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I am quite aware of how the o/s page cache works.  All else being
>>> equal, I more compact database obviously would be preferred.  However
>>> 'all else' is not necessarily equal.  I can mount my database on bzip
>>> volume, that must make it faster, right?  wrong.  I understand the
>>> postgres storage architecture pretty well, and the low hanging fruit
>>> having been grabbed further layout compression is only going to come
>>> as a result of tradeoffs.
>>>
>
> Or configureabillity.. Not directly related to overall space consumption
> but I have been working on a patch that would make TOAST* kick in
> earlier in the process, giving a "slimmer" main table with visibillity
> information
> and simple columns and moving larger colums more aggressively to TOAST.

Do you have any benchmarks supporting if/when such a change would be beneficial?

merlin

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: André Volpato
Date:
Subject: Re: AIX slow buffer reads
Next
From: Kenneth Marshall
Date:
Subject: Re: Select count(*), the sequel