4 ms·
That's the thing, even at its fastest setting, zstd is still slower than lz4. So clearly, it's not the right answer if you're serializing from a fast medium.
by CoolGuySteve 4y ago
That's the thing, even at its fastest setting, zstd is still slower than lz4. So clearly, it's not the right answer if you're serializing from a fast medium.
And this is exactly the kind of cognitive laziness I'm talking about.
- arinlen 4y ago> That's the thing, even at its fastest setting, zstd is still slower than lz4. So clearly, it's not the right answer if you're serializing from a fast medium. It really depends on what you want to do, as decompression speeds can be meaningless and irrelevant in some applications, if not practically all of them. Can you provide a specific example where you feel lz4 is hands down the best option?
- CoolGuySteve 4y agoYes, I can and did. When serializing off a fast medium like nvme drives. And again, I shouldn’t have to keep explaining this. zstd isn’t some magic answer to everything.
- Dylan16807 4y ago> I shouldn’t have to keep explaining this. zstd isn’t some magic answer to everything. That logic doesn't really work. It's true that zstd doesn't let you tune it to be as fast as lz4. But it's possible that a slightly different design could make that possible, so that the new version is better than lz4 at all speeds and at all ratios. Making one compression algorithm strictly better than another requires no magic.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoNote that ZSTD decompression is generally faster for data compressed with slower settings.
- deepsun 4y agoNope, as I wrote above, ZSTD decompression is always slower than Lizard's, regardless of settings.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agosorry for the confusion. I meant that zstd at higher compression decompresses faster than zstd at lower compression.