4 ms·
Yes, totally agree. I tried gzip first, but it introduce about 10~20 bytes cost first. So I proposed such meta encoding here. If we have a much bigger string, g
by chaokunyang 2y ago
Yes, totally agree. I tried gzip first, but it introduce about 10~20 bytes cost first. So I proposed such meta encoding here. If we have a much bigger string, gzip will be better, but all string we want to compress here are just classname/fieldname/packagename/namespace/path/modulename. We don't have enough repete pattern for gzip to work
- Dylan16807 2y agoIf you rip off the gzip headers and footers, DEFLATE applied to a small string only has 10 bits of overhead, 2 bytes with padding. The default Huffman table is not suited for this use case, and a Huffman table in general is a waste of space these days, but the overhead is very small and can be reduced to nothing if you know the original string length.