#DOES BASE64 ENCODING INCREASE SIZE HOW TO#

The browser can send additional HTTP 1.1 requests to the server, and the server sends the requested data back over the same single connection.

With Keep-Alive: The browser and server leave the connection open at the вЂњendвЂќ of a request. This is supported by ALL modern browsers (even mobile) and ALL modern servers (IIS, Tomcat, Apache, etc.) HTTP 1.1 has a вЂњConnection: Keep-AliveвЂќ header. The one TCP connection per request idiom does not exist in practice thanks to HTTP 1.1.ДЎ00 small images = 3 or less connections on my Apache/Linux server. You want to avoid CONNECTIONS, multiple REQUESTS over one connection is very cheap, and commonplace. The problem is that people are confusing вЂњrequestвЂќ with вЂњconnectionвЂќ. That may happen on upload of the image and the image enters the database with its base64 representation, and itвЂ™s done. Let say you have it in your database as string and donвЂ™t need to convert it everytime you return the image. Then youвЂ™ve the base64 representation already. I think this technique is good for cases like the one described at the beggining. Than if you process all those files before returning them to the client, whereвЂ™s the point? You lose all that time youвЂ™ve spent with the technique. First you cannot have your image files in a remote server, cause file_get_contents must read only from the local filesystem. Speaking in PHP terminology there is a function called base64_encode, which with a combination of file_get_contents(imagefile), make the files a base64 string. But however 45KB is nothing for the web, instead of all those 2 MB in the previous test.

I had 5KB for the HTML with no base64 images, and then the size increased to 45KB. The second case with the inline images and the only one request is giving me an average response time of 900ms. In other way you risk the size of the document transfered in the web. ThatвЂ™s good when youвЂ™ve different images, cause every repeatable element in your CSS should be made with HTTP request once and than repeated with the CSS. And with the response youвЂ™ve all 100 images. Than the first and more important rule for optimization (see more here), to make fewer requests is done. The other way to do that is to put all you images in you HTML document.

#DOES BASE64 ENCODING INCREASE SIZE HOW TO#

The image is on my machine, the server is hereвЂ¦ what else? How to put the images inline? Which yet again on the localhost is extreamly slow. In my tests on my localhost, which is supposed to be fast enough, that case loaded 2 MB with a simple small JPEG for the image, loaded 100 times, and approximately 3 seconds. That means directly 101 requests/responses from the server. WeвЂ™ve the HTML document with 100 images (100 tags). I think thatвЂ™s because there are not so much examples with pages with more than 100 images.Д«ut anyway. Note: In fact the technique with base64 representation of the images is not well known. As I mentioned before the progressive JPEG suits better for a large image but for the thumbnails youвЂ™ve to use baseline JPEGs. YouвЂ™ve to preload the thumbnails of an image gallery where only one image is displayed in a bigger size. ThatвЂ™s a rare case I agree, but sometimes it happens. LetвЂ™s say weвЂ™ve a HTML document with 100 images into. In most cases youвЂ™ve image tags with src attribute pointing to the http source of the image. In that case with the images we can simply say, that base64 equals to text (string) representation of the image itself. For those who donвЂ™t know base64 itвЂ™s an encoding format for any data.

Does base64 encoding increase size