Delirium wrote:
> Out of curiosity, have you tried testing bzip2? It's usually much
> better than gzip with multi-megabyte text data; for example, source
> for Linux kernel 2.6.9 is ~44 MB with gzip, and ~35 MB with bzip2. I
> believe it also uses similarities across files, so concatenation may
> not be necessary. It does use much more RAM and execute more slowly
> than gzip, however.
I replied:
Concatenation is still necessary. In the previous
test, bzip2 gave 97%
compression for heavily edited articles, which far exceeds anything
recorded for individual revisions.
Sorry I misunderstood what you meant. Article text is stored in the
database, not in files. We can't compress articles with "bzip2
/database/revisions/*.txt". Any compression of multiple revisions in the
same instance of bzip2 has to managed by MediaWiki.
-- Tim Starling