Kenton,
I worked to see the difference between the *XML fast infoset* and the
*Protocol Buffers* (although I'm not aware about what are internal
things happening therein).
I found that for a typical data to be transferred across the wire for
size of 500KB that a XML file would represent has corr
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:40 AM, ShirishKul wrote:
> I found that for a typical data to be transferred across the wire for
> size of 500KB that a XML file would represent has corresponding file
> size as 300KB for PB binary and around 130KB for XML Fast Infoset
> binary file.
What kind of data w
Kenton,
I've *not* applied any kind of compression while using the FI. I am
not sure but I think there is no default compression done when the XML
is converted to FI file.
FYI...
There is a free tool called "Noemax FI Converter" [http://
www.noemax.com/free_downloads/fi_converter.html] where XM
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 1:53 AM, ShirishKul wrote:
> I've *not* applied any kind of compression while using the FI.
Then how did your FI data get so small? Protocol Buffers do not leave much
room to further reduce the size without some sort of compression. Can you
provide example files?
--~--
Kenton,
> > I've *not* applied any kind of compression while using the FI.
>
> Then how did your FI data get so small? Protocol Buffers do not leave much
> room to further reduce the size without some sort of compression. Can you
> provide example files?
I do not have any sample file to share
On Apr 3, 10:40 am, ShirishKul wrote:
> I worked to see the difference between the *XML fast infoset* and the
> *Protocol Buffers* (although I'm not aware about what are internal
> things happening therein).
>
> I found that for a typical data to be transferred across the wire for
> size of 500KB
On Apr 3, 8:08 pm, Kenton Varda wrote:
> I'm guessing you enabled some kind of compression for the FI encoding? Note
> that protocol buffers, while compact, do not actually apply any sort of
> compression themselves. For repetitive data or data containing a lot of
> text strings, applying zlib
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 10:15 PM, ShirishKul wrote:
> I do not have any sample file to share with you. But I think FI
> handles the repeatative attribute-values.
OK, well, I call that "compression". Try gzipping the final protobuf and FI
documents and comparing the compressed sizes. The protob
On Apr 8, 10:15 pm, Kenton Varda wrote:
> OK, well, I call that "compression". Try gzipping the final protobuf and FI
> documents and comparing the compressed sizes. The protobuf will probably
> compress better, so I'd expect the final results to be roughly even.
The redundancy elimination mec
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Alexander Philippou <
alexander.philip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The redundancy elimination mechanism of FI is actually a vocabulary
> and it works differently than compression algorithms do.
I think we define "compression" differently. In my book, "redundancy
elim
On Apr 10, 10:19 pm, Kenton Varda wrote:
> I think we define "compression" differently. In my book, "redundancy
> elimination" and "compression" are pretty much synonymous. It sounds like
> you are using a more specific definition (LZW?).
If that was true then string interning would also be cl
11 matches
Mail list logo
