On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:45 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > OK, different question:
> > Why would anyone ever set full_page_compress = off?
> The only reason I can see is if compression costs us CPU but gains RAM &
> I/O. I can think of a lot of applications ... benchmarks included ...
> which are CPU-bound but not RAM or I/O bound. For those applications,
> compression is a bad tradeoff.
> If, however, CPU used for compression is made up elsewhere through smaller
> file processing, then I'd agree that we don't need a switch.
Koichi-san has explained things for me now.
I misunderstood what the parameter did and reading your post, ISTM you
have as well. I do hope Koichi-san will alter the name to allow
everybody to understand what it does.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2007-03-29 20:42:33|
|Subject: Re: Modifying TOAST thresholds|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2007-03-29 20:25:12|
|Subject: Feature thought: idle in transaction timeout|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2007-03-29 22:06:33|
|Subject: Re: DEALLOCATE ALL|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2007-03-29 20:24:53|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] add CLUSTER table USING index (take 2)|