• From: Rick Marshall <rjm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: XML Developers List <xml-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:10:22 +1000

One of my favourites ;)

cpu hogging is a very personal thing. If the processor has nothing else 
to do it doesn't matter - unless you're running on a battery about to go 
flat :(

Rick

PS compression works mostly on the tags - see the permathread ...

Tatu Saloranta wrote:
> --- Paul Topping <pault@d...> wrote:
>
>   
>> That's why there's compression. It works a lot
>> better than tag
>> minimization. For one thing, it compresses the
>> content, not just the
>> structure. 
>>     
>
> And yet from performance perspective, is much less
> efficient than tag minimization (or selective
> compression using somewhat markup-specific/optimized
> schemed); at least if we are talking about general
> purpose compression like deflate... at least if one
> considers actual throughput -- although it saves 
> network bandwidth, comp/decompression is a cpu hog.
>
> Content compression, specifically, often provides no
> throughput improvement at all. Name canonicalization
> and indexing on the other hand has impact as easy to
> implement.
>
> -+ Tatu +-
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
>
> !DSPAM:44f50b67214242115153698!
>
>   

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: Recognizing the contribution of the developers of XML
    • From: Tatu Saloranta

• References:
  • RE: Re: Recognizing the contribution of the developers of XML
    • From: Tatu Saloranta