[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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@expway.fr>
Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
