Scott Ribe wrote: >> It doesn't matter that much, anyway, in that deflate would also do the >> job quite well for any sort of site-to-site or user-to-site WAN link. > > I used to use that, then switched to bzip. Thing is, if your client is > really just issuing SQL, how much does it matter? It depends a lot on what your requests are. If you have queries that must return significant chunks of data to the client then compression will help with total request time on a slow link, in that there's less data to transfer so the last byte arrives sooner. Of course it's generally preferable to avoid transferring hundreds of KB of data to the client in the first place, but it's not always practical. Additionally, not all connection types have effectively unlimited data transfers. Many mobile networks, for example, tend to have limits on monthly data transfers or charge per MB/KB transferred. Wire compression would be nice for performance on slower networks, but it's mostly appealing for reducing the impact on other users on a WAN, reducing data transfer costs, reducing required WAN capacity, etc. It's appealing because it looks like it should be possible to make it quite simple to enable or disable, so it'd be a simple ODBC/JDBC connection option. > Compression can't help > with latency. Not with network round trip latency, no. -- Craig Ringer -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
