A separate table level option to control compression - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Pavan Deolasee
Subject A separate table level option to control compression
Date
Msg-id CABOikdP0N3HaMObZrbqyTg8-PotUxbeRRnQn0=VsXHhad6=56w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: A separate table level option to control compression
Re: A separate table level option to control compression
List pgsql-hackers
Hello,

Currently either the table level option `toast_tuple_target` or the compile time default `TOAST_TUPLE_TARGET` is used to decide whether a new tuple should be compressed or not. While this works reasonably well for most situations, at times the user may not want to pay the overhead of toasting, yet take benefits of inline compression.

I would like to propose a new table level option, compress_tuple_target, which can be set independently of toast_tuple_target, and is checked while deciding whether to compress the new tuple or not.

For example,

CREATE TABLE compresstest250 (a int, b text) WITH (compress_tuple_target = 250);
CREATE TABLE compresstest2040 (a int, b text) WITH (compress_tuple_target = 2040);

-- shouldn't get compressed nor toasted
INSERT INTO compresstest250 VALUES (1, repeat('1234567890',20));

-- should get compressed, but not toasted
INSERT INTO compresstest250 VALUES (2, repeat('1234567890',30));

-- shouldn't get compressed nor toasted
INSERT INTO compresstest2040 VALUES (1, repeat('1234567890',20));
INSERT INTO compresstest2040 VALUES (2, repeat('1234567890',30));

Without this patch, the second INSERT will not compress the tuple since its length is less than the toast threshold. With the patch and after setting table level option, one can compress such tuples.

The attached patch implements this idea. 

Thanks,
Pavan

--
 Pavan Deolasee                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki"
Date:
Subject: RE: Cache relation sizes?
Next
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: Cache relation sizes?