| From: | KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
| Date: | 2013-10-15 06:11:22 |
| Message-ID: | 525CDC8A.3060202@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
(2013/10/15 13:33), Amit Kapila wrote:
> Snappy is good mainly for un-compressible data, see the link below:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAZKuFZCOCHsswQM60ioDO_hk12tA7OG3YcJA8v=4YebMOA-wA@mail.gmail.com
This result was gotten in ARM architecture, it is not general CPU.
Please see detail document.
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1aim6s/lz4_extremely_fast_compression_algorithm/c8y0ew9
I found compression algorithm test in HBase. I don't read detail, but it
indicates snnapy algorithm gets best performance.
http://blog.erdemagaoglu.com/post/4605524309/lzo-vs-snappy-vs-lzf-vs-zlib-a-comparison-of
In fact, most of modern NoSQL storages use snappy. Because it has good
performance and good licence(BSD license).
> I think it is bit difficult to prove that any one algorithm is best
> for all kind of loads.
I think it is necessary to make best efforts in community than I do the best
choice with strict test.
Regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2013-10-15 06:39:26 | Re: CF 2013-09 Wrap Up |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2013-10-15 05:55:58 | Re: [PATCH] Add use of asprintf() |