You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The JSON files created by backup are highly compressible, especially if documents in a collection have similar fields. For my data a basic zip got ~70% compression. It would be great if the backup supported writing directly to a compressed archive to limit intermediate disk space.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thinking out loud this makes sense to include in the tool vs recommending in people's workflow if it's a common usage we want to encourage. It makes complete sense to me, does anyone have a suggestion why this wouldn't?
Since this is a tool used mainly in scripts, I'd say it might be better to allow piping the data to another program rather than creating a specific zip with specific properties that people would probably like to change.
Please note that, if the DB size is bigger than available memory, then I'm not sure piping will work (and also zipping for that matter).
The JSON files created by backup are highly compressible, especially if documents in a collection have similar fields. For my data a basic zip got ~70% compression. It would be great if the backup supported writing directly to a compressed archive to limit intermediate disk space.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: