| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
| Date: | 2015-01-02 12:01:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20150102120106.GG19836@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-12-31 16:09:31 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I still don't understand the value of adding WAL compression, given the
> high CPU usage and minimal performance improvement. The only big
> advantage is WAL storage, but again, why not just compress the WAL file
> when archiving.
before: pg_xlog is 800GB
after: pg_xlog is 600GB.
I'm damned sure that many people would be happy with that, even if the
*per backend* overhead is a bit higher. And no, compression of archives
when archiving helps *zap* with that (streaming, wal_keep_segments,
checkpoint_timeout). As discussed before.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2015-01-02 13:52:19 | Re: compress method for spgist - 2 |
| Previous Message | Thom Brown | 2015-01-02 11:42:45 | Re: Parallel Seq Scan |