On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:31:07PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > 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. Results: http://jim.nasby.net/bench.log
As expected, compressing $PGDATA/base was a loss. But compressing pgsql_tmp and then doing some disk-based sorts did show an improvement, from 366.1 seconds to 317.3 seconds, an improvement of 13.3%. This is on a Windows XP laptop (Dell Latitude D600) with 512MB, so it's somewhat of a worst-case scenario. On the other hand, XP's compression algorithm appears to be pretty aggressive, as it cut the size of the on-disk sort file from almost 700MB to 82MB. There's probably gains to be had from a different compression algorithm. > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
