Yep, it makes sense. For text files, with a level 8 compression, I've been seeing attachments being reduced to 30-40% of their original size, which is fairly positive :)
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]>wrote: > > How did you do the tests? Some tool to measure the speed? > > It would be interesting to do the same for the attachments. > > Personally I think that for text mime types, it's generally worth doing > the > > compression. > > They weren't very scientific. Generate a view with and without and > measure the time and file size for each. > > Not at all saying we shouldn't be using it for the attachments. I was > thinking that now that we are doing attachment encoding proper that it > would've been better to turn of the attempt to compress each > compressed chunk because that's just wasted effort. For attachments it > makes much more sense to do it like your patch because of the gzip > dictionaries will run over the stream and not just each chunk written > to disk. If that makes sense? > > Paul > -- Filipe David Manana, [email protected] PGP key - http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC569452B "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
