Fossil

Check-in [b46141f4]
Login

Many hyperlinks are disabled.
Use anonymous login to enable hyperlinks.

Overview
Comment:Update secondary mention of SQLite compression ratio to match table
Downloads: Tarball | ZIP archive
Timelines: family | ancestors | descendants | both | trunk
Files: files | file ages | folders
SHA3-256: b46141f4581dbf3ad51f2460167604f4a27983513d414bc1d2c00a63048992cb
User & Date: andygoth 2018-06-09 16:37:44.401
Context
2018-06-11
10:36
Fix to the IfModifiedSince cache processing. ... (check-in: 33fb3a97 user: drh tags: trunk)
2018-06-09
16:37
Update secondary mention of SQLite compression ratio to match table ... (check-in: b46141f4 user: andygoth tags: trunk)
2018-06-08
09:41
Upgrade dirent to latest version (1.23.2, May 8, 2018) ... (check-in: 1eee6c70 user: jan.nijtmans tags: trunk)
Changes
Unified Diff Ignore Whitespace Patch
Changes to www/stats.wiki.
︙︙
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141


<h2>Analysis And Supplemental Data</h2>

Perhaps the two most interesting datapoints in the above table are SQLite
and SLT.  SQLite is a long-running project with long revision chains.
Some of the files in SQLite have been edited over a thousand times.
Each of these edits is stored as a delta, and hence the SQLite project
gets excellent 73:1 compression.  SLT, on the other hand, consists of
many large (megabyte-sized) SQL scripts that have one or maybe two
edits each.  There is very little delta compression occurring and so the
overall repository compression ratio is much lower.  Note also that
quite a bit more bandwidth is required to clone SLT than SQLite.

For the first nine years of its development, SQLite was versioned by CVS.
The resulting CVS repository measured over 320MB in size.  So, the








|








127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141


<h2>Analysis And Supplemental Data</h2>

Perhaps the two most interesting datapoints in the above table are SQLite
and SLT.  SQLite is a long-running project with long revision chains.
Some of the files in SQLite have been edited over a thousand times.
Each of these edits is stored as a delta, and hence the SQLite project
gets excellent 80:1 compression.  SLT, on the other hand, consists of
many large (megabyte-sized) SQL scripts that have one or maybe two
edits each.  There is very little delta compression occurring and so the
overall repository compression ratio is much lower.  Note also that
quite a bit more bandwidth is required to clone SLT than SQLite.

For the first nine years of its development, SQLite was versioned by CVS.
The resulting CVS repository measured over 320MB in size.  So, the
︙︙