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
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 |