couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filipe David Manana <fdman...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (COUCHDB-583) storing attachments in compressed form and serving them in compressed form if accepted by the client
Date Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:28:56 GMT
Yep, it makes sense.

For text files, with a level 8 compression, I've been seeing attachments
being reduced to 30-40% of their original size, which is fairly positive :)

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>wrote:

> > How did you do the tests? Some tool to measure the speed?
> > It would be interesting to do the same for the attachments.
> > Personally I think that for text mime types, it's generally worth doing
> the
> > compression.
>
> They weren't very scientific. Generate a view with and without and
> measure the time and file size for each.
>
> Not at all saying we shouldn't be using it for the attachments. I was
> thinking that now that we are doing attachment encoding proper that it
> would've been better to turn of the attempt to compress each
> compressed chunk because that's just wasted effort. For attachments it
> makes much more sense to do it like your patch because of the gzip
> dictionaries will run over the stream and not just each chunk written
> to disk. If that makes sense?
>
> Paul
>



-- 
Filipe David Manana,
fdmanana@gmail.com
PGP key - http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC569452B

"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message