One question: why not use 'compressed protocol' then?
Peter
Webyog
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 22:31,
----------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKLOG TASK -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- TASK...........: client-side compressed types CREATION DATE..: Fri, 30 Sep 2011, 20:31 SUPERVISOR.....: IMPLEMENTOR....: COPIES TO......: CATEGORY.......: Client-BackLog TASK ID........: 240 (http://askmonty.org/worklog/?tid=240) VERSION........: WorkLog-4.0 STATUS.........: Un-Assigned PRIORITY.......: 60 WORKED HOURS...: 0 ESTIMATE.......: 0 (hours remain) ORIG. ESTIMATE.: 0
PROGRESS NOTES:
DESCRIPTION:
Is it possible to add a variant of the blob types that is compressed on the client side? By this I mean that the client library handles compression and decompression so that the client code does not have to deal with it.
The benefit from this is reduced load. There will be less network traffic between client/server and master/slave. This uses less space in the binlog, relay log, innodb transaction log and database files. The alternative is to use compression between client/server and master/slave but that doesn't help with the size of the binlog file nor with the innodb datafiles or log file.
We have too many cases where huge text/blob values store uncompressed JSON and the bloat from that hurts performance.
ESTIMATED WORK TIME
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- WorkLog (v4.0.0)
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : maria-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp