W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: I ran across this while working on the spec.

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:47:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfdooiU=nfyx+RAea9vtOmYaQ4DqEKuMjKhDup6Dg0o1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, Fred Akalin <akalin@google.com>, Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I have (that was what Herve proposed :) ), but I do worry: A set typically
requires two pointers per element, plus the size of the element itself plus
pointer to the index itself.
If we call that 8+8+4 bytes of overhead per entry, we're talking about a
kilobyte of potential overhead. That is noticable.

-=R


On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 17 October 2013 11:17, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Lets call this #6.
>
> For #6, I think that you want to allow indexed representations to use
> the static set, otherwise you don't get to take advantage of the
> values there, just the keys.  You might say, however, that indexing
> these doesn't add them to the reference set.
>
> I really don't have a particular preference here, but I do note that
> there is a strict upper bound on the size of the reference set after
> evicting all dynamic entries.  That is, it's the size of your
> reference, times the size of the static table.  Have you considered
> the "don't worry"?
>
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 18:47:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:18 UTC