Post reply

Data Compression

  • July 12, 2008 at 10:39 pm

    #63682

    Comments posted to this topic are about the item Data Compression

  • July 14, 2008 at 4:17 am

    #842281

    Wonder what the performance tradeoff is for page and row compression....

  • July 14, 2008 at 7:12 am

    #842348

    Generally, since it reduces IO from the disk, it will probably result in an improvement in performance.

    In most modern computers, the CPU has clock cycles to spare that can be used for decompressing data. Faster to decompress it than to pull uncompressed data out of storage.

    - Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
    Property of The Thread

    "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon

  • July 14, 2008 at 7:19 am

    #842352

    Could be.... I know backup compression does yield better results overall in most cases...

  • July 14, 2008 at 8:31 am

    #842417

    Great question. I was guessing on this one, and I almost picked the right answer. But the Backup choice lured me away. 🙂

    -------------------
    A SQL query walks into a bar and sees two tables. He walks up to them and asks, "Can I join you?"
    Ref.: http://tkyte.blogspot.com/2009/02/sql-joke.html

  • July 14, 2008 at 9:46 am

    #842509

    I spent some time quizzing the developer on this at TechEd. They didn't go for the best compression, but rather they wanted good compression at high performance.

    There are all sorts of ways in which they do this, like not compressing right away, evaluating at stages (after xx changes to the page), etc. to try and have minimal impact on performance.

    I did find out that while the pages might be compressed in memory, they have to be decompressed before they hit the query processor, so some of the savings is lost there.

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply