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 1gPMJ6-0006dJ-19 for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 06:48:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gPMJ4-00056v-Jp for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 06:48:14 +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 1gPMJ4-00051x-8N for pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 06:48:14 +0000 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gPMJ1-0001c7-7o for pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 06:48:13 +0000 Received: from [10.8.0.146] ([185.40.248.10]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue108 [212.227.15.145]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N1fag-1fRiGc3jom-011y1Y for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2018 07:48:06 +0100 Subject: Re: PostgreSQL VS MongoDB: a use case comparison To: pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org References: <20181119172609.GR3415@tamriel.snowman.net> <20181120164325.GE3415@tamriel.snowman.net> <20181120172829.GF3415@tamriel.snowman.net> From: Thomas Kellerer Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 07:48:05 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181120172829.GF3415@tamriel.snowman.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: de-DE Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:W/lEMKshbkZ29ayIqdukhWcfJsiD0tOsOFovjg7OitNwbfmv3Hi B1K58HEb0sX2MlVW1GPYcAnvYM5NWCByjweNJsbop+SKzB2o7UU9AN1zBa1jc+AQi2aJ0Y5 TY2+czxDBUe2+pqX+G5qH6aPSofM6cABoEsp/IdQJXibQLelwDjaPtZpw9ftz88uvMLS0V2 fe7I8N9bgaWpwAyQOnzWQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:Sizi1xvzwD0=:Nfue65TZyYmv+/ljU2QdFH LA4kafHd2i0HC1dgE7kwNQPC+jbYAIG/M7RFC8Uj9vzPpzIxiLbU0RsXF+e7cy4vaOFZu4PNm e6YENIPqOqWqAVkcXcoF0Da03/2h0bOQMC0vSYkUQcYRnkT9DpZRfwjFROSKw9FtuNpjI5/hE sfuAn9kTNW2czWvkBTCulbdv+rg6CvU2c2qMKB9jIJ0+3E4/cA+HagEYaO57y5Q7QDX+gRkKz 0XF766/MakiVhjRE1L1qELfuqsBCJvFwOASX0rK+ijinuvg1LP/2K/y6jWPCsLM2AzmGKaZVy pTY3Rfxa/FU06kAo/LQ1G80a/YKDsx2DcFiHdBTEcwWxWYqHdS3BB0Nk4KH71i+CRjwDAyPh+ TccKOJYwoU2wMcR0stKCbVKoMcRxlYb7Al/Bt5omdn9RPnybKGBMG5bOEX3sXf7is+4YRV5aW 4dOUGoJdwqYXTy41JP2pVQbfnaO9FEyqD4U6pa9pvVeMwGXd/OFMG7oce055DuXeePKuNHANG bspIrSTipx/fnlqHsP55TRRs34mhInSEFsmNVIsZwDxwB3gISDeoitNB6FWPR/YtJF2LTaqNz aOdz9KYlCTO4SHSFX/dJpy3ZGjM8tlnRpzSxQRgbTADcRV5vo/wmR945Bjq+rOKs5saQMSiRH oWhMJtXLNCeHRuSfiGQE+mhIIa2b90cTaKu9xoSMxB+Lk0sAGJWw+3oS4zRYdONj4Em5hz9Qw kEL3ejkOH0yLVD2WjKXgLd2dMePsC1IK1OPXhOEE0sEXlkvGRoXnogorjJMmNSRgegjFk3FE1 G/jRC7v1bistbHT3cXGpx0qQPTzmg== List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Stephen Frost schrieb am 20.11.2018 um 18:28: > Oh yes, having a dictionary would be a great start to reducing the size > of the jsonb data, though it could then become a contention point if > there's a lot of new values being inserted and such. Naturally there > would also be a cost to pulling that data back out as well but likely it > would be well worth the benefit of not having to store the field names > repeatedly. There is an extension for a dictionary based JSONB compression: https://github.com/postgrespro/zson