On 05/04/2009 08:44 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
On May 4, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Adam Roach wrote:Dean Willis wrote:Right. In my experience, binary offers only marginal performance over structured ASCII.I'll correct this slightly: binary offers only marginal performance over *properly* structured ASCII. I argue that the Apache log format doesn't qualify for this description. (I say this after having to deal with processing relatively large Apache logs, and suffering from the vast quantities of time such processing takes).I'm okay with Tom's suggestion to add ASCII length (and tag?) fields to the text format. If people want to take it that direction, I could re-cast my proposed format so it contains fixed-length ASCII number representations for pointers, lengths, and tags; and so that it terminates records with something like an ASCII 0x0D.One could design things such that each record contains an initial "structure" filed with a fixed-format series of indices (total length, number of fields, lengths for each field, followed by variable--length data fields, tab (or other reserved char) delimited followed by a CRLF terminator (included in total-length index). This gives us records that are fast-parseable, but still human-readable.
Yes. That is what I was proposing. Followups to the sip-clf list (not sip-ops!). /a
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.