Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.swapon.de!news.stack.nl!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Willem <willem@turtle.stack.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.compression
Subject: Re: Best Huffman if Weights Known?
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:47:58 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Stack Usenet News Service
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <slrnl7ibqe.830.willem@turtle.stack.nl>
References: <6de915fd-9223-4745-ab9e-5729c5d04a35@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: turtle.stack.nl
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: mud.stack.nl 1383673678 42138 2001:610:1108:5010::132 (5 Nov 2013 17:47:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@stack.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:47:58 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (OpenBSD)
Xref: csiph.com comp.compression:2067

Harry Potter wrote:
) My compression technique-to-be pre-scans a file for information used by
) other ideas, and I'm wondering: in this condition, which produces better
) results, regular Huffman or Adaptive Huffman?  Or is another variant
) better?

That depends on how variable the symbol distribution is through the file.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT