Re: Beta page (pdfs)

Not sure if anyone cares or not - but the US pdf at
http://www.postgresql.org/developer/beta
is saved as pdf 1.4 (Acrobat 5) - and is 18.4 meg

When saved as pdf 1.6 (Acrobat 7) and Fast web view - it is 7.9 meg.

I've converted the the US & A4, if anyone is interested.
By now, I'd think most folks would have moved on from 1.4.

--
Mike Ellsworth

On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 16:15 -0400, Mike Ellsworth wrote:
> Not sure if anyone cares or not - but the US pdf at
> http://www.postgresql.org/developer/beta
> is saved as pdf 1.4 (Acrobat 5) - and is 18.4 meg

*AFAIK*, this is what we have on Linux. Right?
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org
Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz

Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> writes:
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 16:15 -0400, Mike Ellsworth wrote:
>> Not sure if anyone cares or not - but the US pdf at
>> http://www.postgresql.org/developer/beta
>> is saved as pdf 1.4 (Acrobat 5) - and is 18.4 meg

> *AFAIK*, this is what we have on Linux. Right?

Yeah, if you use the available open-source tools, that's the sort of
size you get. It's possible that we could make the PDF smaller if we
passed it through Acrobat afterwards, but I'm not especially eager
to inject a commercial app into the build process.

regards, tom lane

2010/9/16 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> writes:
>> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 16:15 -0400, Mike Ellsworth wrote:
>>> Not sure if anyone cares or not - but the US pdf at
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/developer/beta
>>> is saved as pdf 1.4 (Acrobat 5) - and is 18.4 meg
>
>> *AFAIK*, this is what we have on Linux. Right?
>
> Yeah, if you use the available open-source tools, that's the sort of
> size you get.  It's possible that we could make the PDF smaller if we
> passed it through Acrobat afterwards, but I'm not especially eager
> to inject a commercial app into the build process.

+1 on avoiding that.

I know a tool called "pdftk" can be used to recompress PDFs, but it
only moves the 9.0 alpha one from 19Mb to 18Mb in my tests, so I'm not
sure it's worth using.

Perhaps there's another tool that can generate it for us? Or does the
new pdf format use some secret new compression method?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

Le 17/09/2010 00:04, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> 2010/9/16 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=DCND=DCZ?= <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> writes:
>>> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 16:15 -0400, Mike Ellsworth wrote:
>>>> Not sure if anyone cares or not - but the US pdf at
>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/developer/beta
>>>> is saved as pdf 1.4 (Acrobat 5) - and is 18.4 meg
>>
>>> *AFAIK*, this is what we have on Linux. Right?
>>
>> Yeah, if you use the available open-source tools, that's the sort of
>> size you get. It's possible that we could make the PDF smaller if we
>> passed it through Acrobat afterwards, but I'm not especially eager
>> to inject a commercial app into the build process.
>
> +1 on avoiding that.
>
> I know a tool called "pdftk" can be used to recompress PDFs, but it
> only moves the 9.0 alpha one from 19Mb to 18Mb in my tests, so I'm not
> sure it's worth using.
>

The french manual in PDF is only 8 Mb.

> Perhaps there's another tool that can generate it for us? Or does the
> new pdf format use some secret new compression method?
>

We're using xsltproc and fo to build our PDF files. But we're working
with XML files

--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> 2010/9/16 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Yeah, if you use the available open-source tools, that's the sort of
>> size you get. It's possible that we could make the PDF smaller if we
>> passed it through Acrobat afterwards, but I'm not especially eager
>> to inject a commercial app into the build process.

> Perhaps there's another tool that can generate it for us? Or does the
> new pdf format use some secret new compression method?

The PDF format specs are public (and even an ISO standard now) --- but
considering that 1.7 is only a couple of years old, it's fair to worry
about how much software can read it successfully.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> The PDF format specs are public (and even an ISO standard now) --- but
> considering that 1.7 is only a couple of years old, it's fair to worry
> about how much software can read it successfully.
>

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20490 answers this question
suggesting a big thumbs-down,
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/poppler/+bug/321720 being the
Ubuntu report on the same issue. Since poppler is the PDF rendering
backend for a large portion of the popular Linux PDF readers (Evince,
Okular, etc.), the fact that it doesn't handle 1.7 yet says this project
doesn't want to adopt it yet to me.

--
Greg Smith, 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
Author, "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance" Pre-ordering at:
https://www.packtpub.com/postgresql-9-0-high-performance/book

Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The PDF format specs are public (and even an ISO standard now) --- but
>> considering that 1.7 is only a couple of years old, it's fair to worry
>> about how much software can read it successfully.

> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20490 answers this question
> suggesting a big thumbs-down,

There's a version history at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format#Versions
that shows the main changes between successive PDF versions.
I don't actually see much related to compression since 1.4,
other than adding JPEG2000 image compression which would certainly
not help any for our docs.

So at this point I'm wondering if the reported size difference is
really PDF-version-related or just indicates inefficiency in the output
from pdfjadetex. If the latter, it might be fixable without creating
compatibility problems. It's not something that interests me enough
to put work into, though.

regards, tom lane

2010/9/16 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> The PDF format specs are public (and even an ISO standard now) --- but
>>> considering that 1.7 is only a couple of years old, it's fair to worry
>>> about how much software can read it successfully.
>
>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20490 answers this question
>> suggesting a big thumbs-down,
>
> There's a version history at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format#Versions
> that shows the main changes between successive PDF versions.
> I don't actually see much related to compression since 1.4,
> other than adding JPEG2000 image compression which would certainly
> not help any for our docs.
>
> So at this point I'm wondering if the reported size difference is
> really PDF-version-related or just indicates inefficiency in the output
> from pdfjadetex.  If the latter, it might be fixable without creating
> compatibility problems.  It's not something that interests me enough
> to put work into, though.

Looks like a bloat issue to me. Just used jPDF Tweak on the file and
it compresses it down to 7.2MB, and still remains a 1.4 PDF.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 23:59 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> Looks like a bloat issue to me. Just used jPDF Tweak on the file and
> it compresses it down to 7.2MB, and still remains a 1.4 PDF.

Whoah. It will decrease size of prebuilt binaries, too.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org
Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz

Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The PDF format specs are public (and even an ISO standard now) --- but
> >> considering that 1.7 is only a couple of years old, it's fair to worry
> >> about how much software can read it successfully.
>
> > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20490 answers this question
> > suggesting a big thumbs-down,
>
> There's a version history at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format#Versions
> that shows the main changes between successive PDF versions.
> I don't actually see much related to compression since 1.4,
> other than adding JPEG2000 image compression which would certainly
> not help any for our docs.
>
> So at this point I'm wondering if the reported size difference is
> really PDF-version-related or just indicates inefficiency in the output
> from pdfjadetex. If the latter, it might be fixable without creating
> compatibility problems. It's not something that interests me enough
> to put work into, though.

Someone optimized our PDFs using Acrobat Pro 7 for Postgres 8.1:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005-11/msg00067.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005-12/msg00007.php

This was to speed up rendering, but it might have reduced file size too.
Are we doing this with our current docs?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> > Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> The PDF format specs are public (and even an ISO standard now) --- but
>> >> considering that 1.7 is only a couple of years old, it's fair to worry
>> >> about how much software can read it successfully.
>>
>> > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20490 answers this question
>> > suggesting a big thumbs-down,
>>
>> There's a version history at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format#Versions
>> that shows the main changes between successive PDF versions.
>> I don't actually see much related to compression since 1.4,
>> other than adding JPEG2000 image compression which would certainly
>> not help any for our docs.
>>
>> So at this point I'm wondering if the reported size difference is
>> really PDF-version-related or just indicates inefficiency in the output
>> from pdfjadetex.  If the latter, it might be fixable without creating
>> compatibility problems.  It's not something that interests me enough
>> to put work into, though.
>
> Someone optimized our PDFs using Acrobat Pro 7 for Postgres 8.1:
>
>        http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005-11/msg00067.php
>        http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005-12/msg00007.php
>
> This was to speed up rendering, but it might have reduced file size too.
> Are we doing this with our current docs?
>
> --
>  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
>  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com
>
>  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
>

Once again, if anyone wants it - let me know where to put them - or I
can post a link for retrieval.

Acrobat 7 has been out > 5 years.
--
Mike Ellsworth

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Someone optimized our PDFs using Acrobat Pro 7 for Postgres 8.1:

> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005-11/msg00067.php
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005-12/msg00007.php

> This was to speed up rendering, but it might have reduced file size too.
> Are we doing this with our current docs?

The project per se doesn't generate PDF docs at all.

I can tell you that in the RHEL/Fedora RPMs, what I ship is just what
pdfjadetex produces. I think Devrim does the same for his RPMs. I
don't know whether anyone else is building PDFs.

regards, tom lane

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 02:45, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> Someone optimized our PDFs using Acrobat Pro 7 for Postgres 8.1:
>
>>       http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005-11/msg00067.php
>>       http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2005-12/msg00007.php
>
>> This was to speed up rendering, but it might have reduced file size too.
>> Are we doing this with our current docs?
>
> The project per se doesn't generate PDF docs at all.

Uh, yes we do. And they go on the website. Don't tell me you don't
think the website is part of the project ;)

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 00:59, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> 2010/9/16 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> The PDF format specs are public (and even an ISO standard now) --- but
>>>> considering that 1.7 is only a couple of years old, it's fair to worry
>>>> about how much software can read it successfully.
>>
>>> https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20490 answers this question
>>> suggesting a big thumbs-down,
>>
>> There's a version history at
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format#Versions
>> that shows the main changes between successive PDF versions.
>> I don't actually see much related to compression since 1.4,
>> other than adding JPEG2000 image compression which would certainly
>> not help any for our docs.
>>
>> So at this point I'm wondering if the reported size difference is
>> really PDF-version-related or just indicates inefficiency in the output
>> from pdfjadetex.  If the latter, it might be fixable without creating
>> compatibility problems.  It's not something that interests me enough
>> to put work into, though.
>
> Looks like a bloat issue to me.  Just used jPDF Tweak on the file and
> it compresses it down to 7.2MB, and still remains a 1.4 PDF.

Cool - I can reproduce that with jPDF Tweak. That sounds like
something we should use as part of our standard way of doing the PDFs
for the website at least. I just did a simple:
java -jar pdftweak.jar postgresql-9.0rc1-A4.pdf -os compressed.pdf.

Devrim, is this something you can easily put into your process for
building the website PDFs?

I haven't verified that the contents are ok beyond a very quick check
though - we should probably do that too.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 14:11 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:

> Devrim, is this something you can easily put into your process for
> building the website PDFs?

Sure. It worked with openjdk, so I can add it to the process.

I just built new PDFs, and I will commit them to website shortly.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
PostgreSQL RPM Repository: http://yum.pgrpms.org
Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz

2010/9/17 Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>:
> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 14:11 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> Devrim, is this something you can easily put into your process for
>> building the website PDFs?
>
> Sure. It worked with openjdk, so I can add it to the process.
>
> I just built new PDFs, and I will commit them to website shortly.

Just did a test to ensure the pages render identically between the
original and optimised versions. I converted each page from both PDFs
to a bitmap, created an MD5 sum for each file in each set of bitmaps,
compared the lists and they were identical. So I'm confident they at
least look the same.

Thom

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

Thom Brown wrote:
> 2010/9/17 Devrim G?ND?Z <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>:
> > On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 14:11 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >
> >> Devrim, is this something you can easily put into your process for
> >> building the website PDFs?
> >
> > Sure. It worked with openjdk, so I can add it to the process.
> >
> > I just built new PDFs, and I will commit them to website shortly.
>
> Just did a test to ensure the pages render identically between the
> original and optimised versions. I converted each page from both PDFs
> to a bitmap, created an MD5 sum for each file in each set of bitmaps,
> compared the lists and they were identical. So I'm confident they at
> least look the same.

Great test method!

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +