On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 09:52:04AM -0600, Michael Fuhr wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 05:37:50PM +0200, zeljko wrote: > > But, when I try (via tunnel, explained above) > > psql -p 5400 -h localhost mydatabase > > it connects and works fine, but there's no compression. > > Query returns in cca 20 seconds, almost same (maybe 0.5 sec. different) as > > normal psql connection.Conclusion is that there's no compression of psql > > stream. Returned data is varchars and integers. > > That's a tenuous conclusion; it assumes that the data transfer is > what's taking all the time. Query planning and execution and > client-side processing must also be taken into account. Using a > sniffer to observe the amount of data transferred would be a more > appropriate test. Also, don't discount the amount of time that compressing and decompressing takes. The ls and psql tests aren't necessarily comparable due to differing amounts and characteristics of data. I just ran some tests between a couple of boxes on a local network, using psql over a tunneled ssh connection as you are. A sniffer showed that a compressed connection transferred 54% of the amount of data as an uncompressed connection but it took 69% longer to do so. If the network is fast and the boxes are slow then a compressed connection can be a net loser. -- Michael Fuhr
