Re: Client/Server compression?

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>
Cc: PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Client/Server compression?
Date: 2002-03-14 19:35:38
Message-ID: 200203141935.g2EJZcj06341@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Copeland wrote:

Checking application/pgp-signature: FAILURE
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Well, it occurred to me that if a large result set were to be identified
> before transport between a client and server, a significant amount of
> bandwidth may be saved by using a moderate level of compression.
> Especially with something like result sets, which I tend to believe may
> lend it self well toward compression.
>
> Unlike FTP which may be transferring (and often is) previously
> compressed data, raw result sets being transfered between the server and
> a remote client, IMOHO, would tend to compress rather well as I doubt
> much of it would be true random data.
>

I should have said compressing the HTTP protocol, not FTP.

> This may be of value for users with low bandwidth connectivity to their
> servers or where bandwidth may already be at a premium.

But don't slow links do the compression themselves, like PPP over a
modem?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Siebert 2002-03-14 19:42:36 Re: PostgreSQL the right choice?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-03-14 19:33:53 Re: [HACKERS] Bug #613: Sequence values fall back to previously chec