Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gP97a-0000x8-H3 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:43:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gP97Y-00026V-TM for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:43:28 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gP97Y-000261-Iq for pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:43:28 +0000 Received: from tamriel.snowman.net ([2001:470:e38f::11]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gP97W-00087x-3s for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 16:43:27 +0000 Received: by tamriel.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B7F215F79C; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:43:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:43:25 -0500 From: Stephen Frost To: Merlin Moncure Cc: f.pardi@portavita.eu, postgres performance list Subject: Re: PostgreSQL VS MongoDB: a use case comparison Message-ID: <20181120164325.GE3415@tamriel.snowman.net> References: <20181119172609.GR3415@tamriel.snowman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+mQKy/8VjtYrTtD4" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --+mQKy/8VjtYrTtD4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings, * Merlin Moncure (mmoncure@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:26 AM Stephen Frost wrote: > > Looks like a lot of the difference being seen and the comments made > > about one being faster than the other are because one system is > > compressing *everything*, while PG (quite intentionally...) only > > compresses the data sometimes- once it hits the TOAST limit. That > > likely also contributes to why you're seeing the on-disk size > > differences that you are. >=20 > Hm. It may be intentional, but is it ideal? Employing datum > compression in the 1kb-8kb range with a faster but less compressing > algorithm could give benefits. Well, pglz is actually pretty fast and not as good at compression as other things. I could certainly see an argument for allowing a column to always be (or at least attempted to be) compressed. There's been a lot of discussion around supporting alternative compression algorithms but making that happen is a pretty big task. Thanks! Stephen --+mQKy/8VjtYrTtD4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJb9DmtAAoJEO1sijiDR2RVHFcP/iPrGe2gMTJdVi7ki+5Q9Zl1 8+Gj5ZQHj4EyO/3FlSrXjDde2/uwxaTvVC7bo9hwG/ZNjH+NcXT4C811tuBarZPT /LkfDSDTTCyPt9ePkisLaAkkAq/rkahDbx+eKtX+XWSnTqDlI3jO3BrDkchXD4a6 8W9nshrdbkpWOqiahE00iGNeqGkgkAgMe3PcdYrqXgTTEoX/bfkd1WRpmMlP+b9K fGNmHPRoMEVEEwdFFObe/P4QqBVnTrAB8EPqpxDn2JdNCafZE0rRXviHUmBLSGFs /XMHtGwxpVZAIH1Ghfu6vj0LXOmpnXFXLjk4hHCvV31raz+iAiRLc+OJ2uhvkQyD K8Bl3WE6euoso1uLEnMvu/ie6QVtvdWI9Dr9+CVw2+DlE4EeOaBWga/6NbkbGb2p tajDpgDHodpxSIpfNB9ex+hsThfO7rlzvDx8Hghkz4fjhQKbltZG7q+y1D/N5UJv jtAKtCvIZ7BmR63QODm0Ihwy1+amZMs6/Hfk+jmA8dmRDK5wAPOPdK2rKQjAaPhp dXgB+JjmMEmRxGx+FgB2sSPokwXtw8+p8tel6Wrpoji6ZNlBzALPT81SQZB8TRzu y5kwEnKHkLX5aWgGpJ18WbmudEiZHeHQ4otxh6862yAsZMf4EbWbuAxiXSJNZR4d 0mLTK/y02VtGJkf9eRnF =98mH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+mQKy/8VjtYrTtD4--