On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 03:12:46PM +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: > On Jun25, 2012, at 04:04 , Robert Haas wrote: > > If, for > > example, someone can demonstrate that an awesomebsdlz compresses 10x > > as fast as OpenSSL... that'd be pretty compelling. > > That, actually, is demonstrably the case for at least Google's snappy. > (and LZO, but that's not an option since its license is GPL) They state in > their documentation that > > In our tests, Snappy usually is faster than algorithms in the same class > (e.g. LZO, LZF, FastLZ, QuickLZ, etc.) while achieving comparable > compression ratios. > > The only widely supported compression method for SSL seems to be DEFLATE, > which is also what gzip/zlib uses. I've benchmarked LZO against gzip/zlib > a few months ago, and LZO outperformed zlib in fast mode (i.e. gzip -1) by > an order of magnitude. > > The compression ratio achieved by DEFLATE/gzip/zlib is much better, though. > The snappy documentation states > > Typical compression ratios (based on the benchmark suite) are about > 1.5-1.7x for plain text, about 2-4x for HTML, and of course 1.0x for > JPEGs, PNGs and other already-compressed data. Similar numbers for zlib > in its fastest mode are 2.6-2.8x, 3-7x and 1.0x, respectively. > > Here are a few numbers for LZO vs. gzip. Snappy should be comparable to > LZO - I tested LZO because I still had the command-line compressor lzop > lying around on my machine, whereas I'd have needed to download and compile > snappy first. > > $ dd if=/dev/random of=data bs=1m count=128 > $ time gzip -1 < data > data.gz > real 0m6.189s > user 0m5.947s > sys 0m0.224s > $ time lzop < data > data.lzo > real 0m2.697s > user 0m0.295s > sys 0m0.224s > $ ls -lh data* > -rw-r--r-- 1 fgp staff 128M Jun 25 14:43 data > -rw-r--r-- 1 fgp staff 128M Jun 25 14:44 data.gz > -rw-r--r-- 1 fgp staff 128M Jun 25 14:44 data.lzo > > $ dd if=/dev/zero of=zeros bs=1m count=128 > $ time gzip -1 < zeros > zeros.gz > real 0m1.083s > user 0m1.019s > sys 0m0.052s > $ time lzop < zeros > zeros.lzo > real 0m0.186s > user 0m0.123s > sys 0m0.053s > $ ls -lh zeros* > -rw-r--r-- 1 fgp staff 128M Jun 25 14:47 zeros > -rw-r--r-- 1 fgp staff 572K Jun 25 14:47 zeros.gz > -rw-r--r-- 1 fgp staff 598K Jun 25 14:47 zeros.lzo > > To summarize, on my 2.66 Ghz Core2 Duo Macbook Pro, LZO compresses about > 350MB/s if the data is purely random, and about 800MB/s if the data > compresses extremely well. (Numbers based on user time since that indicates > the CPU time used, and ignores the IO overhead, which is substantial) > > IMHO, the only compelling argument (and a very compelling one) to use > SSL compression was that it requires very little code on our side. We've > since discovered that it's not actually that simple, at least if we want > to support compression without authentication or encryption, and don't > want to restrict ourselves to using OpenSSL forever. So unless we give > up at least one of those requirements, the arguments for using > SSL-compression are rather thin, I think. > > best regards, > Florian Pflug > +1 for http://code.google.com/p/lz4/ support. It has a BSD license too. Using SSL libraries give all the complexity without any real benefit.
Regards, Ken -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers