On Thu, 12 May 2005 15:40:29 -0400, Jim Starkey <jas@...>
wrote:

> Arno Brinkman wrote:
>
>>
>> The second advantage i see with your record encoding is that
>> delta-versions also keep small (the
>> same as RLE). When a compression is done over a whole record the
>> delta-versions probably grow
>> compared with the current sizes. Anyway i think that compression for
>> blob is definitly needed.
>>
> Hmm, you bring up an interesting point. This encoding scheme rather
> blows the existing difference records out of the water. I suspect that
> an encoding-aware scheme would be necessary to be efficient.
>
> Straight zlib compression for blobs would probably payoff bigtime, even
> more so if decompression were done client side. It would also make
> on-the-fly blob searching quite exciting.
>

As I see the things in developing world wide are going into very low level
of quality. More and more "developers" on forums are talking about putting
in blob fields almost everything (Word files, Huge texts, Huge XMLs, etc).
These things are compressed very well. So if we have the option - "BLOB
WITH ZLIB COMPRESSION" - these developers will be very happy. That will be
hit to performance - but if developer wants it - let give it such thing.

Cheers,
--
Miroslav Penchev