2 ms·

We must be looking at different graphs. See p.7 https://indico.fnal.gov/event/16264/contributions/36466/attachments/22610/28037/Zstd__LZ4.pdf https://indico.fn

• adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  note that for decompression speeds, they quote "We know LZ4 is significantly faster than ZSTD on standalone benchmarks: likely bottleneck is ROOT IO API"
• loeg 4y ago
  I'm looking at http://facebook.github.io/zstd/ http://facebook.github.io/zstd/ "Benchmarks." P.7 of your slides doesn't seem to cover Zstd --fast or decompression. It would be interesting to see how Zstd performs in those modes.
  • rincebrain 4y ago
    Depending on your data, experimentally, some people find zstd --fast can beat LZ4 for them on compression, some people find the opposite; my usual advice to people considering one or the other is to experiment and find out. (An interesting anecdote about the differing notions of compressibility - when I recently wrote something to do a clever dance to avoid burning a great deal of CPU on incompressible data with higher zstd levels, I ended up using LZ4 -> zstd-1 as a two-tier filter to catch incompressible data, because what they each thought was incompressible was different enough that only using LZ4 lost a significant amount of compression sometimes, but only using zstd-1 was comparatively expensive and also lost a significant fraction.)