From: | Dave Crooke <dcrooke(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Newall <postgresql(at)davidnewall(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
Subject: | GZIP of pre-zipped output |
Date: | 2010-03-21 17:04:00 |
Message-ID: | ca24673e1003211004l68237f72r101eb04082f8e288@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
If you are really so desparate to save a couple of GB that you are resorting
to -Z9 then I'd suggest using bzip2 instead.
bzip is designed for things like installer images where there will be
massive amounts of downloads, so it uses a ton of cpu during compression,
but usually less than -Z9 and makes a better result.
Cheers
Dave
On Mar 21, 2010 10:50 AM, "David Newall" <postgresql(at)davidnewall(dot)com> wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I would bet that the reason for the slow throughput is that gzip
> is fruitlessl...
Indeed, I didn't expect much reduction in size, but I also didn't expect a
four-order of magnitude increase in run-time (i.e. output at 10MB/second
going down to 500KB/second), particularly as my estimate was based on
gzipping a previously gzipped file. I think it's probably pathological
data, as it were. Might even be of interest to gzip's maintainers.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bob Lunney | 2010-03-21 18:03:30 | Re: pg_dump far too slow |
Previous Message | David Newall | 2010-03-21 15:50:34 | Re: pg_dump far too slow |