W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Header Table and Static Table Indicies Switched

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 08:39:13 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NFAov49_ttK0su7BX6W3NgH6=5wwpiZwk+DhN37JGcwiQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2 August 2014 03:37, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> Must have missed the connection between removing the "reference set"
> and switching the table order.
>
> I am happy to show data on how it is worse, specifically encoding
> header names indices is now 200% worse ;)
>


Jeff,

I used the test data set and used header table sizes from 0 to 16KB.

There are 126 indexes that can be sent as a single byte, so the 61 static
entries take only half of those.   You have to have more than 65 indexed
headers before any two byte name indexes will be used.... and then it still
has to be a name that has not been used for one of those 65 custom entries.

Sure you can craft a data set that does end up using a lot of 2 byte name
indexes, but I'd be amazed if it was from anything approaching normal
traffic.

If there are are larger normal traffic data sets available, then I'm happy
to run the numbers again.

cheers










-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Friday, 1 August 2014 22:39:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC