> > I'd say that's an improvement worth having, especially considering that > > it requires no net expenditure of CPU time. But the table is certainly > > still open to discuss more complicated approaches. > > If it's not hard to hack in as a test, it'd be interesting to see what > additional gains a more aggresive compression algorithm like LZW got. > CPU is more of a concern in that case, but for databases generating a > lot of WAL it might still be a win.
I've generate a fair amount of WAL segments (about 20GB per day), and have a CPU issue. I implemented a cronjob which compresses them using gzip on a different machine. Any chance we could have an official compression tool which is independent of the server itself so we can distribute the load a little? > BTW, is this the thread you reffered to? I wasn't able to find it in the > TODO and had to go into the archives to find it... > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2005-04/msg00264.php -- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
