My hunch is the analysis was fatally flawed.<p>> the cost of storage has been decreasing at 38%/year<p>This assumes that the growth rate in bytes used is staying constant. I don't think that's accurate in the aggregate which is why there's compression. Additionally, the space overhead isn't just about space usage. Flash suffers horrible wear which means that your space amplification is also write amplification. The combination in a growth rate in the amount of data and a plateau in write cycles means that without compression your cost of storage is probably costing you much more than it should.<p>Additionally, it assumes the growth rate for storage won't hit it's own plateau. Indeed, solid state prices seem to have leveled out already only 6 years after this article because flash is really hard to make cheaper (& even spinning disk has plateaued).<p>I think the analysis is right that you can't just assume you can use as much CPU as you want, but I think it's wrong to eschew compression, especially since the DB gets to choose where to spend compression time on (& decompression is usually free because you cache decompressed results so on average you're not doing much).