4 ms·
340 bytes is not worth 20x time increase. 0.4% decrease in file size IS worth the time. If you can measure the amount of time it takes to download those last 3
by afhof 14y ago
340 bytes is not worth 20x time increase. 0.4% decrease in file size IS worth the time. If you can measure the amount of time it takes to download those last 340 bytes, then you can start to count how many downloads it takes before its worth it. (If download speed was constant, it would be about 224 downloads).
PNG seems like a good candidate for this style compression. A constant time initial cost for recurring savings in bytes transmitted seems like an excellent use of CPU time to me.
As an aside, I ran the Zopfli program with 10000 iterations on jquery-1.9.1.js:
268381 jquery-1.9.1.js
75622 jquery-1.9.1.js.gz
- ryalfalpha 14y ago"A constant time initial cost for recurring savings in bytes transmitted seems like an excellent use of CPU time to me." Wish more people understood this aspect of web scale! well said :)
- CJefferson 14y agoA fairer (in my opinion) comparison, with minimised jquery: 92629 jquery-1.9.1.min.js 32666 (35.26%) gzip -9 31691 (34.22%) zopfli with standard compress 31688 (34.20%) zopfli with max compress
- ck2 14y ago31783 gzip with 32KB dictionary and 128 word size 31764 above with filename stripped I am too lazy to strip out the filename so there is a few bytes penalty, so it's more like 31764 So in this case it's 31688 vs 31764 76 bytes I guess the real question is what is the decode penalty time if any?