> In terms of idle time for gzip and other command to archive WAL offline, > no difference in the environment was given other than the command to > archive. My guess is because the user time is very large in gzip, it > has more chance for scheduler to give resource to other processes. In > the case of cp, idle time is more than 30times longer than user time. > Pg_compresslog uses seven times longer idle time than user time. On the > other hand, gzip uses less idle time than user time. Considering the > total amount of user time, I think it's reasonable measure. > > Again, in my proposal, it is not the issue to increase run time > performance. Issue is to decrease the size of archive log to save the > storage.
Considering the relatively little amount of storage a transaction log takes, it would seem to me that the performance angle is more appropriate. Is it more efficient in other ways besides negligible tps? Possibly more efficient memory usage? Better restore times for a crashed system? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > Regards; > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq