From: | Jeroen Vermeulen <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
Cc: | Tom Lane *EXTERN* <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Disable OpenSSL compression |
Date: | 2011-11-08 17:20:29 |
Message-ID: | 4EB964DD.6030901@xs4all.nl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2011-11-08 22:59, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> In addition to the oprofile data I collected three times:
> - the duration as shown in the server log
> - the duration as shown by \timing
> - the duration of the psql command as measured by "time"
[...]
> I think this makes a good case for disabling compression.
It's a few data points, but is it enough to make a good case? As I
understand it, compression can save time not only on transport but also
on the amount of data that needs to go through encryption -- probably
depending on choice of cypher, hardware support, machine word width,
compilation details etc. Would it make sense to run a wider experiment,
e.g. in the buld farm?
Another reason why I believe compression is often used with encryption
is to maximize information content per byte of data: harder to guess,
harder to crack. Would that matter?
Jeroen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dickson S. Guedes | 2011-11-08 17:28:00 | Re: proposal: psql concise mode |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-08 17:16:25 | Re: plpython extension control files installation |