I'm wondering how this would compare to compressing the logs with Broli and a custom dictionary. I would imagine the size reduction would be much better than t

I'm wondering how this would compare to compressing the logs with Broli and a custom dictionary. I would imagine the size reduction would be much better than the 40% Kevin showed with his approach. As for volume, I don't know if volume is a problem. With logs I either need to look at one log entry to get it's details, a small handful to see a pattern, or aggregate statistics. I can do all of those things wether the volume is 1x, 100x, or 100000x. In other words, size matters to me, but I don't care about volume. On the other hand, for cases when we use tools that charge for uncompressed size or message count, then Kevin's approach could be a useful cost-saving measure.