You are only as fast as your slowest bottleneck

time to read 2 min | 226 words

Chris points out something very important:

“A much better solution would have been to simply put the database on a compressed directory, which would slow down some IO ..."

I don't agree.
Compression needs CPU. We got a lot of more IO by switching on compression (it's just less to write and read). Previous our CPU was about 40%, now averaging at 70%. Compression rate saves us about 30% per file. After switching on compression our IO bound application was about 20% faster.
We are currently planning switching on compression on all our production servers over Christmas, because using cpu-cores for compression is even cheaper than adding hard disks and raid for performance.

In general, most operations today are mostly IO bound, with the CPU mostly sitting there twiddling  the same byte until that byte threatens to sue for harassment. It make sense to trade off IO for CPU time, because our systems are being starved for IO.

In fact, you can just turn on compression at the File System level in most OSes, and it is likely to result in a significant saving for the application performance, assuming that the data does not already fits in memory.