On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Vincent Larsen <vincent.a.lar...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> The current format for encoding floating point numbers does not allow for
> compression in the way the format for integer numbers does.  I understand
> this, since the IEEE formats do not offer a means to compress their numbers.
>
> There is another floating point format called unum (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unum_(number_format)).  This format allows
> for compression and more precisely represents the final number, for a given
> precision.
>
> I bring this up as a suggestion to get even more compression into the
> protobuffer format.
>
Thanks for the suggestion. Though floating point fields (float + double) is
only ~6% of all fields used in Google. We are very unlikely to make a
wireformat change for it.


>
> Sincerely,
>  Vincent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Protocol Buffers" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to