On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:27:42PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
> >>I habitually turn off all compression on my Windows boxes, because it's
> >>a performance hit in my experience. Disk is cheap ...
> >>
> >
> >Disk storage is cheap. Disk bandwidth or throughput is very expensive.
Hey, that's my line! :P
> Sure, but in my experience using Windows File System compression is not
> a win here. Presumably if it were an unqualified win they would have it
> turned on everywhere. The fact that there's an option is a good
> indication that it isn't in many cases. It is most commonly used for
> files like executables that are in effect read-only - but that doesn't
> help us.
The issue with filesystem level compression is that it has to support
things like random access, which isn't needed for on-disk sorting (not
sure about other things like hashing, etc).
In any case, my curiousity is aroused, so I'm currently benchmarking
pgbench on both a compressed and uncompressed $PGDATA/base. I'll also do
some benchmarks with pg_tmp compressed.
Does anyone have time to hack some kind of compression into the on-disk
sort code just to get some benchmark numbers? Unfortunately, doing so is
beyond my meager C abilitiy...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461