Why was the download 3gb, if the solution created a 300x reduction primarily by sharing suffixes? Wouldn’t vanilla compression have dealt with that and achieved a decent (not ideal) amount of compression of the database?
But there's probably not encryption either, so the sqlite database file probably has a lot of duplicated data inside it that's visible externally. I'm also curious how well it compresses by just running the sqlite file through a compression tool. I don't know enough about sqlite storage internals to guess.
