- From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2014 08:55:43 -0700
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Looking at request on an internal upload API that 12 internal header fields: On the first request I measure no change in compression efficiency (not surprising as all header names are unique so nothing is being reused). On the second request I measure a size reduction of 8% when switching the header table to occur before the static table. On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote: >> If static header names are more frequent than custom ones (as you would >> expect them to be), then I think this result will be pretty much the same on >> most data sets. > > This is my point, they are only more frequent on "public" data sets > since you are getting web browser requests that have to interop with > every website. For APIs or internal requests that is very referenced. > > And for those that do appear, they will be indexed and thus get a lower index. > > Consider this, for a client encoding requests, there is no reason to > use the index space for response header names that will NEVER be sent. > Putting the header table below the static table moves those request > headers that are indexed below the static table, pushing the response > names to a higher value.
Received on Saturday, 2 August 2014 15:56:10 UTC