SOMA Compression Algorithms - Comparison Matrix
Quick Selection Guide
Need 99% compression? → Performance-Focused
Need 95% + preserve errors? → Aggressive Hybrid
Need 83% + code-friendly? → Code-Focused
Need 4% + balanced? → Hybrid
Need 0% (preserve all)? → Dialogue-Focused
Feature Matrix
| Feature | Performance | Aggressive | Code | Hybrid | Adaptive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compression | 99.04% | 94.77% | 83.33% | 4.17% | 4.17% |
| Speed | Fastest | Fast | Fast | Moderate | Moderate |
| Preserves Errors | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Preserves Code | Partial | ✅ | ✅ | Partial | Partial |
| Semantic Aware | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Dependencies | None | None | None | None | None |
Use Case Examples
High-Volume Logs
- Algorithm: Performance (99.04%)
- Why: Maximum cost savings
- Trade-off: Context loss acceptable
Debugging
- Algorithm: Code-Focused (83.33%)
- Why: Preserves stack traces
- Trade-off: Moderate compression
General Purpose
- Algorithm: Hybrid (4.17%)
- Why: Balanced approach
- Trade-off: Lower compression
Interactive Chat
- Algorithm: Dialogue-Focused (0%)
- Why: User experience
- Trade-off: No compression
Cost Analysis (1M messages/year)
At $0.01 per 1K tokens:
- Performance: $683,000 saved
- Aggressive: $646,000 saved
- Code-Focused: $575,000 saved
- Hybrid: $36,000 saved
- Adaptive: $36,000 saved
Performance Metrics
Speed (approximate)
- Performance: <1ms per message
- Aggressive: <2ms per message
- Code-Focused: <2ms per message
- Hybrid: <10ms per message
- Adaptive: <10ms per message
Memory
- All: <1MB overhead
- Zero external dependencies