Maybe there are any way to compress small strings(86 chars) to something smaller?
@a@1\s\215\c\6\-0.55955,-0.766462,0.315342\s\1\x\-3421.-4006,3519.-4994,3847.1744,sbs
The only way I see is to replace the recurring characters on a unique character. But i can't find something about that in google. Thanks for any reply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffman_coding Huffman coding would probably be pretty good start. In general the idea is to replace individual characters with the smallest bit pattern needed to replicate the original string or dataset.
You'll want to run statistical analysis on a variety of 'small strings' to find the most common characters so that the more common characters will be represented with the smallest unique bit patterns. And possibly makeup a 'example' small string with every character that will need to be represented (like [email protected])
I took your example string of 85 bytes (not 83 since it was copied verbatim from the post, perhaps with some intended escapes not processed). I compressed it using raw deflate, i.e. no zlib or gzip headers and trailers, and it compressed to 69 bytes. This was done mostly by Huffman coding, though also with four three-byte backward string references.
The best way to compress this sort of thing is to use everything you know about the data. There appears to be some structure to it and there are numbers coded in it. You could develop a representation of the expected data that is shorter. You can encode it as a stream of bits, and the first bit could indicate that what follows is straight bytes in the case that the data you got was not what was expected.
Another approach would be to take advantage of previous messages. If this message is one of a stream of messages, and they all look similar to each other, then you can make a dictionary of previous messages to use as a basis for compression, which can be reconstructed at the other end by the previous messages received. That may offer dramatically improved compression if they messages really are similar.
You should look up RUN-LENGTH ENCODING. Here is a demonstration
rrrrrunnnnnn BECOMES 5r1u6n WHAT? truncate repetitions: for x consecutive r use xr
Now what if some of the characters are digits? Then instead of using x, use the character whose ASCII value is x. for example,
if you have 43 consecutive P, write +P because '+' has ASCII code 43. If you have 49 consecutive y, write 1y because '1' has ASCII code 49.
Now the catch, which you will find with all compression algorithms, is if you have a string with little or no repetitions. Then in that case your code may be longer than the original word. But that's true for all compression algorithms.
NOTE:
I don't encourage using Huffman coding because even if you use the Ziv-Lempel implementation, it's still a lot of work to get it right.
