On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 11:26 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> 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.
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.
merlin