On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 09:45:26PM +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
> On Jun25, 2012, at 21:21 , Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> >> Or that it takes less code/generates cleaner code...
> >
> > So we're talking about some LZO things such as snappy from google, and
> > that would be another run time dependency IIUC.
> >
> > I think it's time to talk about fastlz:
> >
> > http://fastlz.org/
> > http://code.google.com/p/fastlz/source/browse/trunk/fastlz.c
> >
> > 551 lines of C code under MIT license, works also under windows
> >
> > I guess it would be easy (and safe) enough to embed in our tree should
> > we decide going this way.
>
> Agreed. If we extend the protocol to support compression, and not rely
> on SSL, then let's pick one of these LZ77-style compressors, and let's
> integrate it into our tree.
>
> We should then also make it possible to enable compression only for
> the server -> client direction. Since those types of compressions are
> usually pretty easy to decompress, that reduces the amount to work
> non-libpq clients have to put in to take advantage of compression.
>
> best regards,
> Florian Pflug
>
Here is the benchmark list from the Google lz4 page:
Name Ratio C.speed D.speed
LZ4 (r59) 2.084 330 915
LZO 2.05 1x_1 2.038 311 480
QuickLZ 1.5 -1 2.233 257 277
Snappy 1.0.5 2.024 227 729
LZF 2.076 197 465
FastLZ 2.030 190 420
zlib 1.2.5 -1 2.728 39 195
LZ4 HC (r66) 2.712 18 1020
zlib 1.2.5 -6 3.095 14 210
lz4 absolutely dominates on compression/decompression speed. While fastlz
is faster than zlib(-1) on compression, lz4 is almost 2X faster still.
Regards,
Ken
