[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Benjamin Franz wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, James Clark wrote:
> >>Hmmm. What about
> >>
> >> http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/xmill/
[...]
> > -rw-rw---- 1 snowhare snowhare 7267803 Nov 18 07:15 recipes.xml
> > -rw-rw-r-- 1 snowhare snowhare 1993131 Nov 18 07:15 recipes.xmi
> > -rw-rw---- 1 snowhare snowhare 1922919 Nov 18 07:15 recipes.xml.bz2
> >
[...]
> That's an interesting benchmark, though one normally runs such tests on
> several different files as you can always find cases that are
> pathological to one algo and not to another. XML aware compressors also
> tend to do better compared to general compressors on files that are
> highly structured more than on files that contain a lot of text.
>
> How well does gzip fare on this?
-rw-rw---- 1 snowhare snowhare 2442384 Nov 18 07:45 recipes.xml.gz
I make it:
Base file: 100.0%
gzip: 33.6%
xmill: 27.4%
bzip2: 26.5%
> bzip2 is frequently discarded here due to the massive amount of
> processing that it requires, which makes it almost useless on limited
> devices as you'd spend the time you gained in bandwidth uncompressing
> the stream.
As always, use the right tool for the right job. :)
bzip2 _is_ substantially more CPU intensive, but if you are optimizing
mainly for low bandwidth and are not so worried about the CPU, you can
often recoup that in the bandwidth savings. As you noted, it would be the
wrong tool for large files for low bandwidth AND low CPU power situations.
> Do you have that file available somewhere? I'm always curious to see how
> well BiX compares in various situations :)
Unfortunately, no. The data inside the file is owned by a customer, so I
can't make it public.
--
Jerry
I should either have been less specific or more correct ...
---Andy Armstrong <andy@wonderworks.co.uk>
|
