Michael Tokarev wrote:
So, I become curious how lzip behaves. And I immediately gave it a very quick
try.
I guess your try was indeed too quick. :-)
You didn't try lzip but plzip, which is beta software. And of course,
parallel versions of lzip or xz compress less than standard versions
because they split data in blocks before compressing it.
But even so there is someting wrong with your test. Maybe your C++
compiler produces slower executables than the C compiler, or you used an
old version of plzip or lzlib... I have just retried to compress
gcc-4.7.2.tar (just in case) and in my single-processor machine, plzip
(using the default compression level) is faster(6:16) than both
lzip(6:37) and xz(7:32), just as expected.
Why is this expected? Because both lzip and plzip use a default value
for --match-length smaller than the equivalent option in xz (36 vs 64),
and plzip sees a smaller effective dictionary size because it splits the
input data in blocks.
There is no such thing as a free lunch. :-)
Regards,
Antonio.
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
