Ron Mayer wrote:
> Grant Allen wrote:
>> ...warehouse...DB2...IBM is seeing typical storage savings in the
>> 40-60% range
> Sounds about the same as what compressing file systems claim:
> "ZFS provides built-in compression. In addition to
> reducing space usage by 2-3x, compression also reduces
> the amount of I/O by 2-3x. For this reason, enabling
> compression actually makes some workloads go faster.
> I do note that Netezza got a lot of PR around their
> compression release; claiming it doubled performance.
> Wonder if they added that at the file system or higher
> in the DB.
I just so happen to have access to a Netezza system :-) I'll see if I
can find out.
One other thing I forgot to mention: Compression by the DB trumps
filesystem compression in one very important area - shared_buffers! (or
buffer_cache, bufferpool or whatever your favourite DB calls its working
memory for caching data). Because the data stays compressed in the
block/page when cached by the database in one of its buffers, you get
more bang for you memory buck in many circumstances! Just another angle
to contemplate :-)
Dazed and confused about technology for 20 years
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: novice||Date: 2008-10-30 04:55:31|
|Subject: phone database schema|
|Previous:||From: Eus||Date: 2008-10-30 04:43:15|
|Subject: Re: Why Postgresql Public Schema Is Not Owned By The DB Owner By Default|