Larger pages will yield higher compression ratios, as will zstd (slightly slower than lz4). Mileage varies, but on some of my databases, between the 64KB pages (zfs recordsize) and zstd, my compression ratios approximately doubled, from about 1.8:1 to a little under 4:1. This will all heavily depend on the type of data you are storing, though. zstd has adjustable compression, so if you have tons of CPU to spare, you could turn it up from the default of 3 (probably optimal cost/size compromise) to high teens for a compression boost. On Wed, 16 Aug 2023, 14:34 Reinis Rozitis, <r@roze.lv> wrote:
From: Gordan Bobic via discuss <discuss@lists.mariadb.org>
One of the best compromises is to configure InnoDB with 64KB pages, put it on ZFS with recordsize=64K, and enable zstd compression on ZFS.
Sorry for hijacking the thread a bit. After the discontinuation of tokudb I chose the innodb+zfs route (bad previous/early experience with rocks, also million knobs to adjust for your workload etc) but at that time didn't think of increasing the Innodb page size to 64KB - do you have any (even rough) numbers of 16 vs 64KB (on zfs)?
Also, what would be the benefit of zstd vs lz4? Higher compression ratio?
rr