[This message was posted by Rolf Andersson of Pantor Engineering <[email protected]> to the "FAST Protocol" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/46. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/4d5e64a3 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
you make a good point about applying FAST and ZLIB in sequence. We've seen 30% compression from using gzip on FAST encoded data and this is in addition to the ~70-80% that you normally get in the FAST encoding step. I've heard that FAST+gzip (or zip) is used for archival. Best, Rolf > According to my personal experience, FAST is not necessarily better > than zlib in terms of compression ratio. In fact those two are very > close. You can even apply FAST/zlib if the time overhead is tolerable > for application. However, FAST is more suitable for context-based > streaming process because the granularity of which is message- > by-message or record-by-record, instead of handling data in a batch > process way. [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[email protected]] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fix-protocol?hl=en.
