Kenton, I've *not* applied any kind of compression while using the FI. I am not sure but I think there is no default compression done when the XML is converted to FI file.
FYI... There is a free tool called "Noemax FI Converter" [http:// www.noemax.com/free_downloads/fi_converter.html] where XML file can be converted to FI file and Viceversa and has *compression* as additional option. Using "Noemax FI Viewer" [http://www.noemax.com/free_downloads/ fi_viewer.html], the FI file can be viewed in text format. Regards, Shirish On Apr 3, 10:08 pm, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:40 AM, ShirishKul <shirish...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I found that for a typical data to be transferred across the wire for > > size of 500KB that a XML file would represent has corresponding file > > size as 300KB for PB binary and around 130KB for XML Fast Infoset > > binary file. > > What kind of data were you encoding? > > I'm guessing you enabled some kind of compression for the FI encoding? Note > that protocol buffers, while compact, do not actually apply any sort of > compression themselves. For repetitive data or data containing a lot of > text strings, applying zlib compression to the encoded message can make it > much smaller. > > > Timings to parsing and serializing is extremely good for Protocol > > buffers. > > :) > > (Don't forget to use optimize_for = SPEED if performance is important -- > this will be the default in the next version.) > > What makes a difference if we consider XML fast infoset binary against > > > PB binary in terms for Sizes, speed to parse them up etc.? > > I don't actually know much about FI. My guess based on reading some > descriptions of FI is that PB is similar to FI's non-self-describing, > no-compression mode. I would also guess that because XML is a much more > complicated format than protocol buffers, FI probably has more overhead when > encoding simple structured data, especially number-heavy data. For > string-heavy data, though, XML works pretty well and so this overhead may > not be an issue in that case. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---