-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I'm inclined to think that the concept of force_input_size is wrong.
> Instead I suggest that we have a min_comp_rate (minimum percentage
> savings) and a min_savings (minimum absolute savings), and compress
> if either one is met. For instance, with min_comp_rate = 10% and
> min_savings = 1MB, then for inputs below 10MB you'd require at least
> 10% savings to compress them, but for inputs above 10MB you'd require
> at least 1MB saved to compress.
I would agree with the above, and even possibly suggest the ability to
set this as a GUC or per table. I may be willing to pay a very heavy
cost if I new that the data would only be accessed intermittently.
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD0DBQFGtSYCATb/zqfZUUQRAtzAAJ4/BJ0cSn+DX5Oee1U+jj8da9nQWgCQ4q2o
etzgDblKI7eXsAFVwzcq
=eOFz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----