JSON.stringify is obviously not very space efficient. For example, [123456789,123456789] occupy 20+ bytes when it could need just around 5. Does websocket compress its JSONs
WebSocket is, at its heart, just a set of framing for TEXT or BINARY data.
It performs no compression on its own.
However, the WebSocket spec allows for Extensions, and there have been a variety of compression extensions in the wild (the formalized specs for one of these is finalized).
As of today (August 2018) the accepted compression spec is permessage-deflate
.
Some of the extensions seen in the wild:
x-webkit-deflate-frame
- an early proposed compression that compresses each raw websocket data frame. Seen in use by Chrome and Safari. (now deprecated in Chrome and Safari)Of note, the permessage-deflate
extension is the first in a line of PMCE (Per-Message Compression Extensions) that will eventually include other compression schemes (ones being discussed are permessage-bzip2
, permessage-lz4
, and permessage-snappy
)
Does websocket compress its JSONs before sending to stream?
The short answer is: sometimes, but you can't depend on it.
As stated aptly by Joakim Erdfelt, Websocket connections support both Text and Binary messages.
JSON is just one way to transport data, with the advantage of versatility and ease of use (while being wasteful as far as space is concerned).
You can easily transfer binary data using the Websocket API, eliminating bandwidth overhead at the expense of other concerns (such as endieness, word length, parsing, etc').
Many browsers also support Websocket message compression as an extension to the Websocket protocol (although the server might not support the extension).
Extensions are negotiated using the Sec-WebSocket-Extensions
HTTP header. The negotiations are usually implemented by the client / server without offering a public API to control them.
Right up until 2015, there were a number of approaches and implementations in the wild, but since December 2015 RFC 7692 is the only real contender for message compression and things are much clearer.
RFC 7692 compresses the whole message before wrapping (and perhaps fragmenting) it in Websocket "packets", making it easier to implement than some previous compression schemes.
The current draft offers a permessage-foo
compression negotiation scheme (where foo
is the requested / supported compression).
I only experienced the permessage-deflate
extension myself.
Do notice that extension negotiations are optional, meaning that potential network clients are usually allowed to negotiate connections without compression, even if your server supports the extension.
Moreover, RFC 7692 supports selective compression, meaning some messages might be compressed while others aren't compressed...
... for example, [123456789,123456789]
might be sent as is, since it's length indicates it isn't likely to be worth the compression effort.
permessage-deflate
(RFC 7692), August 8th, 2017:This is a combination of the information in the comments, last updated August 8th, 2017.
If I missed anything, add them here and update the date.
x-webkit-deflate-frame
)Websockets send raw bytes.
They don't know or care what those bytes represent.
If you want to compress data, you'll need to compress it yourself before sending it down the wire.
Note that Chrome supports gzip for websocket connections. (assuming your server also does)