On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Alexander Philippou < alexander.philip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The redundancy elimination mechanism of FI is actually a vocabulary > and it works differently than compression algorithms do. I think we define "compression" differently. In my book, "redundancy elimination" and "compression" are pretty much synonymous. It sounds like you are using a more specific definition (LZW?). > FI documents > are good candidates for compression irrespective of whether a > vocabulary is used or not. We've done a few tests with medium/large- > sized documents and protobuf wasn't more compact than FI. Sure, but FI wasn't smaller than protobuf either, was it? I would expect that after applying some sort of LZW compression to *both* documents, they'd come out roughly the same size. (FI would probably have some overhead for self-description but for large documents that wouldn't matter.) Without the LZW applied, perhaps FI is smaller due to its "redundancy elimination" -- I still don't know enough about FI to really understand how it works. However, I suspect protobuf will be much faster to parse and encode, by virtue of being simpler. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
