| 1 |
В Птн, 19/12/2008 в 17:06 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh пишет: |
| 2 |
> But disk space is cheap. How big are the dictionaries? The vim |
| 3 |
> dictionaries are around half a meg uncompressed, and if you're looking |
| 4 |
> to save a meg or two in disk space on the kind of system that includes |
| 5 |
> dictionaries then you're doing something seriously wrong... |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Size is times larger. All dictionary data (without index) I have |
| 8 |
currently installed occupies 93M in compressed form and uncompressed |
| 9 |
it'll take 402M. This does not count dictionaries I'm going to add into |
| 10 |
the tree. If I remember correctly all dictionaries I needed from |
| 11 |
stardict site took about 1Gbyte (uncompressed). Also some people use |
| 12 |
more then two languages and then they'll use more dictionaries. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Really, all that compression seems to do is save a small amount of |
| 15 |
> irrelevant disk space, at the cost of requiring more disk space and |
| 16 |
> memory for a new library and slowing things down to a level that's |
| 17 |
> unacceptable on some systems. Compression makes sense for network |
| 18 |
> transfers, backups and file formats that do their own domain specific |
| 19 |
> compression. Elsewhere? Likely not so much. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I agree in general but in this specific case compression does a good |
| 22 |
job. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Peter. |
Archives