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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to