On Fri, Jan 02, 2015 at 01:01:06PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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
>
+1
On an I/O constrained system assuming 50:50 table:WAL I/O, in the case
above you can process 100GB of transaction data at the cost of a bit
more CPU.
Regards,
Ken
