On 18 April 2013 06:25, Masashi UMEZAWA <masashi.umez...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Actually, I have never noticed that you have LZ4 bindings already. It > is indeed a great news! > I would never have started sqnappy if I knew the fact. As you say, the > project has a similar goal. > > Anyway, it is good to have another option. > > Some Sqnappy characteristics: > - it has a minimum dependency (it does not use FFI, NativeBoost) so > that it can be run on older images
- having a separate plugin/VM , which users always have trouble dealing wih :) > - Streaming format support (to be soon) - you can compress very big > data with relatively small memory footprint. > > Best regards, > > 2013/4/18 Mariano Martinez Peck <marianop...@gmail.com>: >> Hi, >> >> I was checking https://github.com/mumez/sqnappy. Some time ago I wrote >> bindings for LZ4: >> http://smalltalkhub.com/#!/~marianopeck/LZ4 >> >> Do you know which are the differences? >> >> It looks both are intended for the same purpose: speed in >> decompression/compression over compression ratio. From what I can see in >> http://fastcompression.blogspot.fr/p/lz4.html it says encoding 555 MB/s >> decoding 1.80 GB/ while in https://code.google.com/p/snappy/ it says >> "Snappy compresses at about 250 MB/sec or more and decompresses at about 500 >> MB/sec or more." >> >> So...doesn't LZ4 seem to be faster than sqnappy? And I already wrote the >> bindings for LZ4...so I was wondering that... >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> -- >> Mariano >> http://marianopeck.wordpress.com > -- > [:masashi | ^umezawa] > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
