4 ms·
You probably have some conditioning that discourages use of '-9', but that's generally totally fine to use with zstd in terms of speed. I've been a zstd conver
by dmw_ng 6y ago
You probably have some conditioning that discourages use of '-9', but that's generally totally fine to use with zstd in terms of speed.
I've been a zstd convert for a few years now and haven't settled on any particular ideal setting. Sometimes the very high compression levels (-19) produce a worse result, sometimes they kill it. I think most of the time I'm using -9.
I've seen cases where '--ultra --long -22' was bringing size down by 10% or more compared to the normal settings, and also cases where changing the defaults at all produced significantly lower compression.
- loeg 6y agoFor approximate reference (N.B., this graph is somewhat dated — zstd 1.3.4 is from March 2018): https://raw.githubusercontent.com/facebook/zstd/v1.3.4/doc/images/CSpeed2.png https://raw.githubusercontent.com/facebook/zstd/v1.3.4/doc/i... (On the dataset used for the figure, zstd -9 was about the same MB/s as gzip -4, and compressed at ~3.5x to gzip's ~3.0x.)