Convinced me ;-)<br><br>thanks,<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/30/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">dormando</b> <<a href="mailto:dormando@rydia.net">dormando@rydia.net</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Khamis Siksek wrote:<br>> 10 rows is just an example, but replacing 1 MB for 100 bytes change<br>> every time there is an update the overhead is more than 99%.<br>><br>> How about using the same methodology that xdelta is using to do the
<br>> binary patching, also the client doesn't have to know anything about the<br>> offset, he just need to call a function "Update" with the right key, the<br>> server should handle the patching not the client.
<br><br>If you're sending the whole dataset to the server, it's no more overhead<br>to copy over the data. It'd be a lot more computationally intensive to<br>do an xdelta on what to copy around in RAM. Also, 1MB is the upper limit
<br>for slabs, so they shouldn't get much bigger than that :)<br><br>-Dormando<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>Khamis Siksek<br><a href="http://saksoook.blogspot.com">http://saksoook.blogspot.com
</a>