Lazze · HackerTrans

15 lat temudiscuss

Sorry, had assertions on. Getting same results now (using my own benchmark function though)

Benchmarking: benchdata/northwind.mdf

snappy: Compressed 2752512 bytes into 726437 (26.4%) at 653.0 MiB/s

QuickLZ: Compressed 2752512 bytes into 620933 (22.6%) at 456.8 MiB/s

Benchmarking: benchdata/gdb.exe

snappy: Compressed 8872609 bytes into 4530844 (51.1%) at 333.1 MiB/s

QuickLZ: Compressed 8872609 bytes into 4056279 (45.7%) at 267.6 MiB/s

Benchmarking: benchdata/pic.bmp

snappy: Compressed 18108198 bytes into 16561772 (91.5%) at 292.5 MiB/s

QuickLZ: Compressed 18108198 bytes into 15784615 (87.2%) at 197.2 MiB/s

Benchmarking: benchdata/plaintext.txt

snappy: Compressed 2988604 bytes into 1657747 (55.5%) at 289.4 MiB/s

QuickLZ: Compressed 2988604 bytes into 1436646 (48.1%) at 238.5 MiB/s

Benchmarking: benchdata/proteins.txt

snappy: Compressed 7344249 bytes into 2964303 (40.4%) at 371.6 MiB/s

QuickLZ: Compressed 7344249 bytes into 2586659 (35.2%) at 321.9 MiB/s

Lazze

15 lat temudiscuss

They compare with QuickLZ 1.0 from 2006 (you can see that from snappy_unittest.cc).

I've done a quick benchmark with the files on quicklz.com on the same machine with QuickLZ 1.5.0:

test file; library; compressed size; compression speed in mb/s

average QuickLZ 47.9% 308 snappy 53.0% 261

proteins.txt QuickLZ 1.5.0 35.6% 331 snappy 40.5% 232

plaintext.txt QuickLZ 1.5.0 48.1% 245 snappy 55.5% 193

gdb.exe QuickLZ 1.5.0 45.8% 270 snappy 51.1% 214

flower.bmp QuickLZ 1.5.0 86.7% snappy 91.5% 208

northwind.mdf QuickLZ 1.5.0 23.2% snappy 26.4% 456

comments