Hi, On 2020-04-22 14:40:17 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > Oh? I find it *extremely* exciting here. This is pretty close to the > > worst case compressability-wise, and zstd takes only ~22% of the time as > > gzip does, while still delivering better compression. A nearly 5x > > improvement in compression times seems pretty exciting to me. > > > > Or do you mean for zstd over lz4, rather than anything over gzip? 1.8x > > -> 2.3x is a pretty decent improvement still, no? And being able to do > > do it in 1/3 of the wall time seems pretty helpful. > > I meant the latter thing, not the former. I'm taking it as given that > we don't want gzip as the only option. Yes, 1.8x -> 2.3x is decent, > but not as earth-shattering as 8.8x -> ~24x.
Ah, good. > In any case, I lean towards adding both lz4 and zstd as options, so I > guess we're not really disagreeing here We're agreeing, indeed ;) > > I agree we should pick one. I think tar is not a great choice. .zip > > seems like it'd be a significant improvement - but not necessarily > > optimal. > > Other ideas? The 7zip format, perhaps. Does have format level support to address what we were discussing earlier: "Support for solid compression, where multiple files of like type are compressed within a single stream, in order to exploit the combined redundancy inherent in similar files.". Greetings, Andres Freund
