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