| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Compressing WAL |
| Date: | 2005-04-11 01:12:41 |
| Message-ID: | 200504110112.j3B1Cf018664@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> Maybe better for -hackers, but here it goes anyway...
>
> Has anyone looked at compressing WAL's before writing to disk? On a
> system generating a lot of WAL it seems there might be some gains to be
> had WAL data could be compressed before going to disk, since today's
> machines are generally more I/O bound than CPU bound. And unlike the
> base tables, you generally don't need to read the WAL, so you don't
> really need to worry about not being able to quickly scan through the
> data without decompressing it.
I have never heard anyone talk about it, but it seems useful. I think
compressing the page images written on first page modification since
checkpoint would be a big win.
Is this a TODO?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-04-11 01:29:38 | Re: Functionscan estimates |
| Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2005-04-10 23:40:59 | Re: Unicode problems on IRC |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-04-11 01:29:38 | Re: Functionscan estimates |
| Previous Message | John A Meinel | 2005-04-10 13:09:46 | Re: performance - triggers, row existence etc. |