Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Alaric B. Snell wrote: > On Friday 07 February 2003 09:24, Robin Berjon wrote: >>I certainly hope that future improvements on our binary format will in fact >>make it compress badly :) That should happen by making it more compact than >>it currently is (while keeping similar speed, which is why compression is >>not always an option). > > Nooo! It's not the compression *ratio* that matters here. It's the eventual > size. To you perhaps. An improved binary infoset removing yet more redundant information by itself will be likely to generate less compressible data, and the ratio matters in cost/benefit analysis. If I have (completely arbitrary numbers): bix 10k bix+gz 8k better-bix 8.5k better-bix+gz 7.8k Then even though the last one is the smallest, option 3 will be de-encoded a *lot* faster. At some point the different between a compressed binfoset and an uncompressed one becomes too marginal to be interesting. -- Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...> Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/ 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
