A lot of redundancy can be eliminated, and we have good past experience (and results) with this approach because we do it in the RDB format used for storage. F

A lot of redundancy can be eliminated, and we have good past experience (and results) with this approach because we do it in the RDB format used for storage. For the replication link it's easy to imagine a simple way to encode command names as operation IDs, the same for prefixed length stuff. So now you have: *3 $3 SET $3 foo $3 bar But this may become like: <set-opcode><2><3>foo<3>bar where the opcode is 1 byte, and the rest of the prefixed lengths are variable depending on the argument size, but most of the times 1 or two bytes. This of course is much more compact. However it's not bad to have the current format to be exactly like the AOF, and the client protocol itself, so everything is the same currently... and is future/backward compatible without issues. But well performances always have some price.