[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
The file would be even smaller if written with attributes, that is, in XML.
Bob Foster
david.lyon@computergrid.net wrote:
> Hi Ron,
>
> Yes, it may appear a little strange at first. But there
> is logic behind it all.
>
> What you have shown are two good examples of traditional
> XML 1.0. No problems with those at all. Bog standard.
>
> The answer to the question is that when multiplied out
> a few tens of thousands of times, every extra character
> and every parsing ambiguouity can slow the process of digesting
> the data down, dramatically.
>
> There isn't much difference between:
>
> <product_item>
> <part_description>3 1/2" Spanner</part_description>
> </product_item>
>
> and:
>
> <product_item>
> part_description&="3 1/2^" Spanner"
> </product_item>
>
> Counted, this gives 51 characters on the first part description
> style, and 35 on the second according to my counting style (which
> can make mistakes).
>
> Add in the two tags to be fair, this gives (51+29)=80 characters, and
> (35+29)=64 characters per inventory item.
>
> But with 40,000 line items, an easily achievable inventory pricelist,
> we get a saving of 760,000 bytes, or about 80% of the size of the
> xml 1.0.
>
> But make it more realistic, add in some more fields:
>
> <product_item>
> <part_description>3 1/2" Spanner</part_description>
> <sell_price>18</sell_price>
> <cost_price>15.50</cost_price>
> <InStock>False</InStock>
> <Arrival_Date>2005-02-15</Arrival_Date>
> </product_item>
>
> and:
>
> <product_item>
> part_description&="3 1/2^" Spanner"
> sell_price$=18
> cost_price$=15.50
> InStock?=False
> Arrival_Date@=2005-02-15
> </product_item>
>
> Style 1, 51+27+30+24+39+(29)=200
> Style 2, 35+14+17+14+24+(29)=133
>
> Once again, multiply by 40,000 items and the respective
> file sizes are approximately:
>
> Style 2 = 5320000 bytes
> Style 1 = 8000000 bytes
>
> In XML 1.0, we have a larger file with no type information
> and in the computergrid format, we have type information as
> well as a saving of around 35% or 2,680,000 bytes.
>
> I guess they are the benefits of being strange as best as I
> can explain it. I will stick to what I have got but thanks
> for your comments anyway.
>
> Best Regards
>
> David
|
