I vaguely recall this came out when Damien added deterministic revisions?
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Filipe David Manana <[email protected]> wrote: > 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." >
